Senate version of data-privacy bill cleared by Finance Committee after hours of debate over non‑judicial immigration requests

The Senate Finance Committee voted to approve Senate Bill 504 as amended to conform to House Bill 711, completing a contentious review of new limitations on state-held or third‑party personal data used for immigration enforcement.

The bills would strengthen privacy protections by restricting compliance with non‑judicial immigration‑related requests and requiring a judicial warrant — a court order signed by a judge — before businesses or data holders must turn over certain state‑held personal records for immigration enforcement. Proponents said the measure is intended to stop broad “fishing expeditions” by agencies seeking data for immigration purposes.

Why it matters: Committee members said the question turns on the difference between a judicial warrant and other forms of investigatory process. Senator Lamb argued the legislation targets administrative requests used by some federal agencies to sweep large datasets for immigration uses and said the bill aims to ensure that requesters show probable cause to a judge before obtaining sensitive state data. Opponents cautioned that some federal agencies commonly rely on administrative subpoenas or administrative warrants in their operations and that the bill could create conflicts or practical problems for businesses that receive such requests.

Key exchange: Senator Lamb said the bill’s approach was to limit non‑judicial requests and to preserve compliance with judicial warrants. As one senator summarized the legal line, “It says by a federal court or state court, so that's going to be … judicial,” a clarification offered during debate about the bill’s carveouts for court‑issued orders. Other senators pressed whether subpoenas or administrative warrants would be treated as permissible and whether the statutory six‑month cooperation threshold for agencies “engaged in or supporting immigration enforcement” would be clear enough for businesses to apply in real time.

Legal and operational details: Committee counsel and several senators described the House amendments as addressing concerns about judicial warrants and federal‑law conflicts. The measure specifies that a controller or processor must comply with federal law and with court orders; where an administrative request is made by a federal or local agency that, within the prior six months, has engaged in immigration enforcement, the bill can make compliance optional pending a judicial warrant. Counsel also noted the bill excludes judicial warrants from the non‑compliance rule.

Outcome and next steps: After extended discussion and several members’ requests for clarification, the committee voted to pass SB 504 as amended to conform to HB 711. Sponsors said they will monitor implementation details and that the language directing compliance with judicial warrants was preserved. The committee record shows multiple senators explaining their votes; the measure will move forward to the next stage of consideration.

What remains unresolved: Senators raised practical concerns about how businesses would know whether an agency has “engaged in or supported immigration enforcement” in the prior six months and how to handle administrative subpoenas from agencies that do not use judicial warrants. Sponsors and counsel said those questions reflect implementation and definitional issues that may be addressed in guidance or subsequent legislation.

The committee adjourned the item after the vote; the bill will move on to the next chamber actions for further consideration.