5 legal issues to watch in the 2026 Legislature

The Indiana General Assembly is preparing for an abbreviated legislative session that reconvenes Jan. 5 but will still delve into legal issues dealing with immigration, capital punishment and the removal process for prosecutors and Marion Superior Court judges.

Legislative leadership has decided to try to finish this year’s “non-budget” session by the end of February, even though state law allows them to meet through March 14.

The reason for the early finish is to account for the two weeks they already met in December to consider a mid-decade redrawing of Indiana’s congressional maps—an effort that was defeated in the Indiana Senate despite pressure for its passage from President Donald Trump and Gov. Mike Braun.

Finishing by the end of February will also give lawmakers more time to campaign if they are facing a primary challenge in the May 5 election.

But before all-out campaigning begins, here’s a look at five legal issues lawmakers are likely to tackle in the next eight weeks.

Immigration

Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City, is bringing back his immigration-enforcement legislation that died during the 2025 session, but it’s unclear what could emerge because two other bills are among its competitors.

State Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, is offering Senate Bill 76, an alternative that is now eligible to come before the full Senate after it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Brown’s bill shares many similarities with Prescott’s 2025 immigration-related bill, which she struck down earlier this year by not giving it a hearing.

But Brown’s voice could be diminished since she was removed as chair of the committee last week and replaced with Sen. Cyndi Carrasco, an Indianapolis Republican and general counsel of the University of Indianapolis.

Prescott’s revived legislation, House Bill 1039, has been re-labeled as the Fostering and Advancing Immigration Reforms Necessary to Ensure Safety and Security (FAIRNESS) Act.

The FAIRNESS Act has gained a lot of traction in recent months, especially after President Donald Trump’s border czar, Tom Holman, made an appearance at the Statehouse to urge Indiana lawmakers to assist the president by strengthening the state’s immigration enforcement laws.

A nearly identical version of Prescott’s bill was filed in the Senate by Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford.

All three bills would place penalties on businesses that employ illegal immigrants, and they would establish requirements on government agencies to comply with immigration detainer requests, which are used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement o ask state or local law enforcement agencies to hold arrestees for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would ordinarily be released while the feds decide whether they should be put into federal custody or deported.

One of the major differences between Brown’s legislation and the other two bills appears to lie in the enforcement power that would be granted to the attorney general’s office.

Under Brown’s legislation, those able to determine whether probable cause exists that an employer unlawfully hired an illegal immigrant include a state agency, a law enforcement agency or the attorney general. Prescott’s bill keeps that power solely in the attorney general’s hands.

Rep. Chris Jeter, a Fishers Republican and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks these are things that can be worked out.

“I think the disconnect is just a little bit over the mechanics and who has the power to do what,” he told The Indiana Lawyer at Denton’s annual legislative conference. “I’m confident that’s all stuff we can work through.”

Jeter, a co-author of the FAIRNESS Act, said he thinks the bills’ key players will get together early in the session to hammer out what they think can pass.

“I don’t think any of us have any interest in passing dueling versions and trying to go to conference committee and all that because the timeline is just going to be so short,” he said.

Jeter predicts they will come to an agreement on one amendment to be added to a bill in the Senate before looking to pass it through the House.

“We’re going to come to an agreement on what is possible,” he said.

Capital punishment

Another issue rising on the legislative radar is capital punishment.

Since death-penalty executions resumed in Indiana last year after a 15-year pause, three death row inmates have been put to death by lethal injection. Five men remain on death row.

This past session, a bill was filed by Rep. Robert Morris, a Fort Wayne Republican, that called for the end of the death penalty in the state. But the effort was quashed after it failed to get a hearing.

Morris has told The Indiana Lawyer previously that he intends to bring forward similar legislation in the 2026 session, but he did not respond to current requests for comment.

Opponents of the death penalty also have been making their presence known. Jodie English, a death penalty defense attorney and capital mitigation specialist, recently handed the governor’s office 70-some letters written by religious leaders and members of Indianapolis First Friends and Shalom Zone, an interfaith group, in opposition to capital punishment.

The high cost of lethal injection drugs also has prompted legislation that would allow for a firing squad to be used instead.

Authored by Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, Senate Bill 11 would allow a condemned person to request a firing squad and allow the state to use a firing squad if the required drug for lethal injection is unavailable.

Under current state law, lethal injection is the only permissible method of capital punishment.

The proposed use of firing squads has generated mixed opinions, with opponents of the death penalty, like the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, calling the bill “inhumane,” while others, like Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, have raised support because of its affordability compared to lethal injection.

But the state’s top leader hasn’t clearly laid out his stance on the practice.

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun told the Capital Chronicle earlier this month that death penalty bills “don’t rise to the level of other issues” in the state.

“If it comes up,” he said, “then I’ll view it on the merits at the time.”

Braun’s office did not offer additional comments to The Lawyer.

Sen. Aaron Freeman, an Indianapolis Republican and chair of the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee, said he is aware of the rising federal concerns over executions and the challenges in obtaining the drugs.

“I’m certainly open to the conversation of, how do we legally and effectively carry out executions for those that have been tried and convicted of the worst of the worst crimes,” Freeman told The Lawyer. “I don’t know if it’s in Senate Bill 11 or another bill. I don’t know, but we’ll, I’m sure, take a look at it.”

Prosecutors

The state’s prosecuting attorneys are expected to face off against Rep. Andrew Ireland, R-Indianapolis, after he filed House Joint Resolution 1, a response to what he has repeatedly called “rogue” prosecutors and judges.

The bill proposes amending Indiana’s Constitution to include prosecuting attorneys and circuit court judges among the list of state officials eligible to be impeached.

Prosecutors across the state have already publicly opposed the move, saying it would not address issues of what some see as lax punishment for offenders.

For a state that hasn’t removed many public officials from office, Rep. Jeter, who would determine whether the bill receives a committee hearing, said he doesn’t think the bill is a viable solution to the problem it’s purporting to solve.

“Impeaching someone would take up an entire session,” he said. “It would just take all the oxygen out of the room.”

Although he didn’t explicitly say whether he would give it a hearing, Jeter said he doesn’t have any interest in moving a bill that’s “not gonna do anything.”

“To me, that bill is more of a messaging bill than really one that’s going to do anything,” he said.

HJR 1 requires approval from two consecutive general assemblies and ratification by voters before it could take effect.

Courts and judges

One piece of legislation that Jeter emphasized over Ireland’s proposal was Rep. Danny Lopez’s House Bill 1033, which provides a new avenue for Marion County judges to be removed.

Jeter said he thinks Lopez’s bill would be a “significant step toward accountability” in Marion County.

The legislation would allow the Marion County judicial selection committee to make determinations concerning the “suitability” of a judge to continue holding office. It would also prevent a judge from appearing on the ballot for retention if the committee has “determined that the judge is not suitable to retain office.”

The court’s executive committee would also gain more responsibilities and authority over the workings of the court, like being able to appoint all 28 magistrates of the court, a power currently divided among the presiding judge (who can appoint one magistrate) and the judges themselves (who could, by a majority vote, appoint 27 magistrates).

The bill would also grant more job security for the presiding judge—the seat currently held by Republican Marc Rothenberg—by increasing the percentage of votes needed to remove a member of the court’s executive committee, which the presiding judge is a part of, from two-thirds of judges voting to 85% of votes.

Under state law, the executive committee is comprised of four judicial officers, voted on by two-thirds of the court’s judges.

Bail

Senate Joint Resolution 1, which proposes a new bail restriction for offenders, is bringing Indiana’s bail law under a microscope.

The proposed constitutional amendment, authored by Sen. Koch, would prohibit bail eligibility for individuals accused of offenses who are deemed a safety risk. Currently, only murder and treason are explicitly ineligible for bail under state law.

“There’s clearly work, in my opinion, to be done on the issue of bail,” said Freeman, another author of the bill.

For an offense other than murder or treason to be non-bailable under the proposal, two conditions must be met: there must be clear proof or a strong presumption of guilt, and the state must provide clear and convincing evidence that the accused person’s release would pose an unreasonable threat to the safety of any individual or the community.

Like Ireland’s impeachment bill, SJR 1 would require a lengthy approval process, ending in a ballot vote by Hoosiers.•