Delaware Senate approves bills limiting state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement

The Delaware Senate on June 25 approved a package of bills that restrict how state and local authorities may assist federal civil immigration enforcement, advancing measures lawmakers said are designed to protect schools, hospitals and places of worship while preserving narrow public‑safety exceptions.

Senator Hoffner, sponsor of House Substitute 2 for House Bill 94, told colleagues the goal was to draw a bright line: state and local officers should not participate in pre‑planned federal civil immigration actions at sensitive locations — schools, child‑serving entities, colleges, places of worship and health‑care facilities — except where an imminent public‑safety emergency exists. "When civil immigration enforcement happens in or around a school or a hospital, it discourages entire communities from sending their kids to school, seeking health care, or attending services," the sponsor said.

The sponsor emphasized reporting and transparency requirements when an emergency exception is used and said the substitute narrowed earlier language to avoid tying officers' hands. "This substitute makes it narrower and clearer and it draws a bright line, leaves a narrow emergency exception, and backs it up with transparency," the sponsor said.

Senator Sturgeon, who sponsored House Substitute 1 for House Bill 368 addressing detainer requests, described detainers as nonbinding requests that can extend an individual's time in custody even when charges are dropped. "We can't control how the federal government chooses to enforce federal immigration law, but we can decide how Delaware uses its own law enforcement and correction resources," Sturgeon said.

Sergeant Mike Rippold of the Delaware State Police, called to the floor as a witness, told senators DSP "did not participate in Federal civil immigration" enforcement and that state police worked with sponsors to tailor the bill. "Civil immigration enforcement is not our mission," he said. "This statute was intended to be for civil enforcement. Therefore, there will be no impact on how we control our mission for civil enforcement." The witness also said officers retain the ability to act in exigent situations and that the bill was intended to preserve law‑enforcement authority for imminent threats.

Opponents and skeptical colleagues pressed on practical effects. "If a command is given to halt and the subject does not stop and runs inside a sanctuary — are law enforcement supposed to stop?" Senator Lawson asked, arguing officers in hot pursuit may have to enter protected locations. Lawson warned that in practice officers will "go after the criminal" regardless of statutory language, calling the bright line "not" always workable.

Supporters said the measures are narrowly tailored to state and municipal action and do not prohibit federal operations on the same sites. Senator Buxton, agreeing with the policy's intent, recalled prior federal enforcement activity more than a decade earlier and argued the bills address community fear that discourages access to schools and medical care.

Votes: HS2 for HB 94 was approved by roll call, 15 yes and 6 no. HS1 for HB 368 passed by roll call, 15 yes and 6 no (the clerk recorded one change from not voting to no during the tally). House substitute 1 for HB 150, which prevents civil arrests at courthouses and certain hearing locations (with exceptions), passed 18 yes, 1 no and 2 not voting.

What happens next: The measures passed the Senate and will be returned to the House as required for concurrence on any Senate changes or for enrollment, or otherwise proceed as the legislative process dictates.