Committee hears emotional testimony on bill to require judicial warrants before immigration enforcement may enter childcare settings; amendment fails and bill l

Representative Sensimir, the bill's author, opened the committee hearing for House File 3415 (HF3415) by describing recent enforcement activity near Minneapolis childcare centers and framing the measure as a narrow vehicle to require a judicial warrant for civil immigration enforcement entering childcare facilities.

House Research walked the committee through the DE1 author's amendment, which defines "childcare center" and related terms, requires employees to request identification and a written purpose from civil immigration officials, and prohibits employees from consenting to entry for civil immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant that authorizes the arrest of a particular individual. The DE1 amendment was adopted by the committee.

More than a dozen parents, providers, community leaders and advocates testified in support. Testifiers recounted incidents that included masked agents approaching staff without identification, the abduction of staff in front of parents and children, staff unable or afraid to come to work, lockdowns and increased absences. Several witnesses described sustained community "patrol" efforts to escort teachers because of fear of enforcement actions. Testimony included survey data from Think Small (27% of responding metro programs reported increased absences; 35% reported declining enrollments; 27% reported unexpected closures) and a recounting by an attorney who filed habeas relief for a detained staff member who was released after 23 days.

Proponents, including John Bealer of the ACLU of Minnesota, framed HF3415 as restoring protections similar to earlier federal "sensitive locations" policy and emphasized that the bill does not block an officer with a valid judicial warrant or in an emergency from doing their job; instead, it removes "consent" as a basis for civil immigration entry to childcare properties and places duties on licensed facilities and employees to request a warrant and identification.

Members debated an A2 amendment that would have expanded the bill's definition of childcare to include family child-care providers and child-care operations located in places of worship. Supporters said expansion closes gaps for home-based providers and faith-based settings; opponents warned that expanding the definition into private homes raises constitutional and practical questions and could place an onerous compliance burden on caregivers. The A2 amendment failed to reach the eight votes required for committee approval.

Committee members also debated enforcement consequences and the bill's practical effect given federal supremacy. Supporters argued HF3415 provides clarity for providers and a civil avenue for redress; some members worried the bill would shift legal or civil risk onto childcare employees who might inadvertently consent, and others questioned whether state action could meaningfully constrain federal civil immigration enforcement. Representative Sensimir and supporters said they welcome technical fixes and good-faith protections as floor amendments.

The clerk conducted a roll-call vote on the bill at the end of the hearing. The clerk announced a 7-aye, 6-no tally; because the committee requires eight affirmative votes to pass the bill out of committee, HF3415 did not advance at this meeting.

Next steps: supporters said they intend to pursue floor amendments and additional drafting to address liability and good-faith concerns; no final referral to the House floor occurred at this hearing because the committee did not record the required majority.