SB 76: Power Without Guardrails

A sweeping immigration bill just passed the House. I voted no.

Today the Indiana House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 76 by a 61–28 vote.

SB 76 expands the Attorney General’s enforcement authority, mandates compliance with federal immigration detainers, creates new employer penalties, adds reporting requirements across state systems, and inserts immigration enforcement language into areas of law that previously had nothing to do with immigration.

It is sweeping, punitive, and concentrates enormous power in one office with limited checks.

I voted no on this bill. Here are some of the most concerning provisions.

---

1. Mandatory detainer compliance with immunity

SB 76 requires any governmental body that has custody of an individual subject to an immigration detainer request to:

• Notify the judge handling bail

• Record the detainer in the case file

• Comply with all requests in the detainer

• Inform the individual they are being held pursuant to the detainer

It also provides immunity from civil or criminal liability for actions taken in compliance with that detainer, so long as the action does not violate federal or state law.

Immigration detainers are requests, not warrants. They are administrative notices issued by federal immigration authorities, not judicial orders. When we require local officials to comply with them as a matter of state law, we are effectively mandating detention without a judicial finding.

That is a serious step, and it deserves serious guardrails.

We offered amendments to ensure due process protections were explicit and enforceable. Those guardrails were not adopted.

---

2. Expanded Attorney General authority

Under SB 76, if the Attorney General determines probable cause exists that a governmental body violated immigration enforcement provisions, the Attorney General must bring an action to compel compliance and may seek:

• Injunctive relief

• Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per knowing or intentional violation

• “Other relief” necessary to ensure compliance

In addition, if a governmental body is found to have violated certain detainer provisions, the Governor may withhold state funding for up to one year (as amended in Senate motion language reflected in the House version).

That is an extraordinary enforcement structure.

During debate, we raised concerns that this bill removes meaningful discretion from local officials while dramatically increasing enforcement discretion in the Attorney General’s office. If we believe in local control (and many of my colleagues say they do), this bill moves us in the opposite direction.

---

3. New employer penalties, including license suspension and revocation

SB 76 also creates a new chapter in Indiana Code making it unlawful to knowingly or intentionally recruit, hire, or continue to employ an undocumented individual in Indiana.

If a court finds a violation, the penalties escalate quickly:

• Suspension of operating authorizations

• Up to 180-day suspensions

• Permanent revocation of operating authorizations

• Statewide permanent revocation in certain repeat scenarios

These provisions may very well shut down a business.

We offered language emphasizing proportionality and clear standards for “reasonable diligence” to protect small businesses that make good-faith efforts to comply. Some clarifications were added during the process, but the enforcement scheme remains aggressive and highly centralized.

We should be careful about writing laws that create maximum penalties first and rely on discretion later.

---

4. New reporting requirements across systems

SB 76 reaches into multiple state systems, including:

• Annual reporting on non-citizens receiving certain state benefits

• Quarterly hospital reporting of identification types used by Medicaid patients beginning January 1, 2027

• Monthly financial reporting tied to ICE agreements at Miami Correctional Facility

These provisions are presented as transparency measures, but they expand data collection around immigration status in ways that may chill access to care and services.

When people are afraid to seek medical care or cooperate with local institutions because they fear data collection tied to immigration enforcement, that affects public health and public safety.

---

5. Broad preemption of local policy

SB 76 reinforces language that governmental bodies may not “in any way limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

That phrase, “in any way,” is expansive.

We raised concerns that this language could sweep in routine local policy decisions about how limited resources are allocated, or how law enforcement prioritizes community policing. The majority’s answer: enforcement must not be limited.

That is not a small shift. That is the state telling cities and counties that their policy discretion ends here.

---

SB 76 consolidates power in the Attorney General’s office, mandates compliance with federal detainers, threatens funding loss, imposes significant employer penalties, and expands state-level reporting mechanisms, all in one bill.

When legislation touches civil liberties, detention authority, local control, business licensing, and access to public services all at once, it should move carefully.

This bill did not move carefully.

If we are going to write immigration policy at the state level, we should do it with clarity, proportionality, and constitutional caution. We should not default to maximum enforcement and sort out consequences later.

I believe in the rule of law.
I also believe in due process.
And I believe in local decision-making where possible.

For those reasons, I voted no.

---

If you have questions about SB 76 or want to discuss how it may affect your business, your community, or your family, please reach out. The bill now returns to the Senate for concurrence before heading to the Governor.

We can disagree on policy, but we should never stop asking hard questions about power.

— Blake