The new amendment for HB 1312 (President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park) proposes a broad framework to protect individuals interacting with state courts, hospitals, schools, and child-care centers from civil immigration enforcement and related retaliation. It establishes avenues for civil lawsuits, policy requirements for institutions, and limits on information disclosure and cooperation with immigration enforcement absent judicial authorization.
Purpose and Policy Direction
The legislation seeks to ensure that immigrants can access courts, health care, education, and child-care services without fear of civil immigration detention. It restricts cooperation with civil immigration enforcement across multiple institutions and creates legal remedies for violations.
Key Provisions
Illinois Bivens Act*
• Allows civil lawsuits against anyone who violates constitutional rights during civil immigration enforcement.
• Authorizes compensatory and punitive damages and sets criteria for punitive awards.
• Protects employees who report violations under the Whistleblower Act.
Court Access, Safety, and Participation Act
• Grants civil arrest protection to people traveling to, attending, or leaving state court in good faith.
• Provides civil remedies including statutory damages of $10,000.
• Qualified immunity applies; courts and court personnel acting lawfully are exempt from suit.
Health Care Sanctity and Privacy Law
• Requires hospitals to create and submit policies governing interactions with law enforcement around civil immigration matters.
• Specifies procedures for verifying law-enforcement authority, responding to requests, handling patient information, and designating waiting areas.
• Establishes penalties for noncompliance and provides good-faith protections for staff.
• Applies to the University of Illinois Hospital and grants IDPH emergency rulemaking authority.
Public Higher Education Act Amendments
• Prohibits colleges and universities from disclosing or threatening to disclose immigration-status information except as allowed by law.
• Requires law-enforcement entry procedures and website postings by January 1, 2026.
• Mandates submission of policies to state higher-ed boards and permits civil lawsuits for violations.
• Protects participation in constitutional-rights and immigration-related training.
Child Care Act Amendments
• Prohibits day-care centers from disclosing immigration-status information except where legally required.
• Requires judicial warrant or subpoena for immigration-enforcement entry.
• Establishes procedures for releasing children when a parent faces immigration enforcement.
• Requires written policies and prohibits practices that discourage participation based on immigration status.
• Creates enforcement provisions.
County Government Impact
Courthouse Procedures
Counties operating court facilities will need to ensure local security practices are consistent with arrest protections, signage expectations, and protocols for responding to attempted civil immigration enforcement on courthouse grounds. Coordination with the judiciary will be important.
Law Enforcement Considerations
County sheriffs and law enforcement agencies will need clear internal policies to avoid actions that could trigger civil liability under the Illinois Bivens Act. Training may be required on warrant requirements, constitutional rights during civil immigration-related encounters, and avoiding disclosure of immigration-status information without legal authority.
Jail and Detention Issues
While the bill targets civil immigration enforcement in certain settings (courts, hospitals, schools, and day care), counties operating jails may need to review existing ICE detainer practices, information-sharing protocols, and procedures when coordinating custody transfers to ensure consistency with constitutional and state requirements.
Liability Exposure and Risk Management
The creation of private rights of action for constitutional violations may increase litigation risk for county agencies and personnel engaged in immigration-related activity. Counties may need to review insurance, counsel guidance, and employee discipline procedures under the Whistleblower Act changes.
Training and Policy Development
County staff in courthouse security, records, law enforcement, and emergency services may require updated training on permissible interactions with civil immigration enforcement agents and obligations related to public access to facilities.
Intergovernmental Coordination
Counties will likely coordinate with state judicial authorities, hospitals within the county, child-care facilities, and higher education partners to ensure consistent understanding of compliance obligations and to avoid inconsistent practices across institutions.
*At the federal level, the term “Bivens” refers to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics(1971), a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized an implied right for individuals to sue federal officers for money damages when those officers violate constitutional rights. Before Bivens, individuals whose rights were violated by federal agents had very limited ability to seek damages unless Congress had expressly authorized a lawsuit. The decision filled that gap for certain constitutional violations—initially involving unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
However, since the 1980s the Supreme Court has narrowed the Bivens doctrine, repeatedly declining to extend it to new contexts or new categories of defendants. The Court has emphasized that Congress — not the judiciary — should create remedies for constitutional violations outside the original Bivens context. Because of these limits, Bivens claims today are rarely successful and apply only in a small set of circumstances. Efforts by some states to enact “Bivens Acts” reflect a response to this narrowing: they create an explicit state-level cause of action to ensure individuals can seek redress for constitutional violations within that state’s jurisdiction, particularly where federal remedies are limited or uncertain.