The American Immigration Council is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Written by: Julian Montes-Sharp. State and Local Initiatives Intern
Midway through the year, with over 30 state legislatures adjourned, emerging trends show how some states are taking up policies to protect immigrant communities.
Having seen nearly 18 months of the second Trump administration’s immigration agenda, many state lawmakers have responded by passing innovative policies that build upon a foundation of best practices, such as addressing data privacy and protection, expanding access to immigration legal services, and placing guardrails on collaboration with federal immigration enforcement.
Identification and masking
From the outset of the second Trump administration, masked and plainclothes federal immigration enforcement officers have increasingly become common sights across the country. While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains that officers “wear masks to prevent doxxing,” these policies have eroded trust between federal law enforcement and the public, weakened accountability and oversight, and fueled a rise in criminal impersonations, with people unable to distinguish between masked agents and criminal assailants.
In September 2025, California responded by passing the “No Vigilantes Act” and the “No Secret Police Act,” prohibiting the use of face coverings and requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to “visibly display identification” while on duty, such as their agency, name, or badge number.
In 2026, following California’s example, numerous states enacted similar policies. They include: Washington, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York.
Several of these bills have since been the subject of legal challenges. Earlier this year, key provisions of the California laws were blocked in separate rulings from the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit. The Department of Justice has also sued New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York over their new laws.
Data privacy and protection
Over the past year, new details have emerged about the administration’s attempts to collect sensitive personal information in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda through voter rolls and DMV records, Medicaid enrollee data, and massive contracts with data brokers and companies building surveillance technologies.
Seeking to protect residents and their personal information, numerous states in 2026 passed laws strengthening data privacy and protections:
- WA (SB 6002): Places limits on the collection, sharing, and use of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data, including prohibiting the use of ALPRs for immigration enforcement in Washington state.
- MD (HB 711): Prohibits data controllers from selling personal data to entities involved in civil immigration enforcement and imposes safeguards on Maryland public record requests.
- OR (SB 1587): Prohibits public bodies in Oregon from disclosing personally identifiable information to a data broker without a written attestation that the information will not be sold or transferred to any entity intending to use it for federal immigration purposes.
Cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
States have also undertaken efforts to limit or add guardrails to their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies by restricting 287(g) agreements, which deputize state and local police to perform certain immigration enforcement functions. Some have also taken measures to protect sensitive locations like schools and hospitals, as well as reduce state participation in civil immigration detention activities.
Legislation from 2026 in this area includes:
- MD (HB 444): Prohibits state and local law enforcement in Maryland from entering into a federal immigration enforcement agreement and requires the immediate termination of any existing agreement.
- VA (SB 783): Restricts state and local law enforcement agencies in Virginia from maintaining, renewing, or entering into any federal immigration agreement unless strict conditions are met.
- NM (HB 9): Prohibits New Mexico public entities from signing detention contracts with ICE, terminates existing 287(g) agreements, and blocks the sale or lease of public land for immigration detention purposes.
Currently, Virginia and New Mexico’s laws are being challenged in court. These lawsuits follow challenges of similar policies in Connecticut, Illinois, Boston, and Los Angeles.
Accountability and liability
Given ICE’s documented abuses, numerous states have sought to create legal remedies allowing individuals to sue federal authorities for constitutional and civil rights violations.
While none of these bills have become law, state legislatures demonstrated that there is a strong desire for accountability:
- CA (SB 747): Creates a state-level cause of action, allowing individuals to sue federal, state, and local offices for constitutional violations (Passed the California Senate in January 2026. Awaiting action in the Assembly).
- CO (SB26-005): Creates a state-level cause of action, allowing individuals to sue anyone who violates their constitutional rights during civil immigration enforcement (Passed legislature and vetoed by Colorado’s governor).
- States where similar bills were introduced but did not progress through the legislature include Minnesota, Georgia, and Washington.
Additionally, states have considered measures to enhance transparency and monitoring of immigration enforcement. These policies — including tracking state spending on immigration enforcement, creating an immigration enforcement transparency dashboard, and providing access to databases on ICE contracts with private entities — show that states seek to expose and challenge the administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics. The first half of 2026 has been marked by a number of significant state legislative efforts and wins to protect immigrant communities. These efforts are likely to continue in 2027 and beyond.
