Pennsylvania Lawmaker Proposes Ban on Warrantless Civil Immigration Arrests Near State Buildings: What It Means for Immigrant Communities

A Pennsylvania lawmaker has unveiled a new legislative proposal to restrict warrantless civil immigration arrests by federal and contracted law enforcement authorities near state-owned facilities, a development that could have significant implications for immigrant rights and access to public services in the Commonwealth. 

State Senator Amanda Cappelletti (D-Delaware/Montgomery) is circulating a memo outlining a proposal that would prohibit civil immigration arrests within 1,000 feet of state-owned or leased buildings including courthouses, health care offices, public schools, and benefit centers unless agents have a judicial warrant or court order. 

What the bill would cover (civil vs. criminal)

This proposal focuses on civil immigration enforcement, not state criminal enforcement. That matters because many ICE arrests are tied to civil immigration process (for example, removability allegations or immigration detainers) rather than a new criminal charge in state court. The reporting indicates the restriction would apply to ICE and also local law enforcement agencies working under federal contracts (often discussed as 287(g) arrangements) when engaged in immigration enforcement near state facilities. 

One key backdrop is the shift in federal enforcement posture. As described in the news coverage, Sen. Cappelletti points to the federal government’s change in guidance that previously limited enforcement at certain “sensitive” locations (like schools and hospitals), arguing the change contributed to “reckless, warrantless” activity and greater fear around accessing services. The proposal also comes as Pennsylvania has seen an increase in local agencies entering federal cooperation agreements, which expands the number of non-federal actors participating in immigration enforcement. 

Can Pennsylvania do this? The federal-state legal tension

Immigration enforcement is federal, but states still control their property, operations, and allocation of state resources. The coverage notes that Cappelletti cites constitutional and federalism principles (including the idea that the federal government generally cannot “commandeer” state resources to carry out a federal program) as part of the legal justification for state-level limits around state facilities. At the same time, any bill like this can raise legal disputes about how far a state can go without conflicting with federal authority—so if introduced and advanced, this is an area to watch closely.

What this means for immigrants and families in Allentown and the Lehigh Valley

If enacted, a rule like this could reduce fear around showing up for critical life events, appearing in court, seeking help from state offices, applying for services, or accessing healthcare-related state facilities, because it would require a judicial warrant/order for civil immigration arrests within the defined perimeter.  Even so, it’s important to remember that proposed legislation is not yet the law, and it also does not eliminate immigration enforcement elsewhere.

Whether or not this proposal becomes law, the underlying issue is real: immigration enforcement can be fast-moving, confusing, and scary, especially when it intersects with everyday life. If you or a loved one is worried about ICE contact, prior removal orders, pending court dates, or exposure through a past arrest, the safest move is to speak with counsel early and build a plan rather than reacting during a crisis.

Need advice about ICE enforcement risk, removal defense, or a path to status? Lehigh Valley Immigration Law helps individuals and families across Allentown and the Lehigh Valley with removal defense, family-based cases, humanitarian options, and USCIS filings.

Contact our office to schedule a confidential consultation so we can assess your situation, explain your options, and help you protect your family. Call today to schedule a consultation.