Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Republican-backed immigration enforcement bill that expands local cooperation with federal authorities and penalizes noncompliance cleared the Indiana Senate on Monday along party lines.
Senate Bill 76 passed 37–7, with all “no” votes coming from Democrats. Five senators were excused and did not vote. The bill now heads to the House.
The vote comes as immigration enforcement — particularly actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE — has sparked protests, clashes with law enforcement and heightened political tensions in several states, especially in Minnesota.
The legislation, authored by Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, expands requirements for state and local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, particularly with respect to immigration detainer requests — and it gives Indiana new tools to penalize local entities that fail to comply.
“Senate Bill 76 addresses a serious problem,” Brown said Monday, addressing the chamber. “The Biden administration deliberately created a humanitarian crisis in this country. Because of this, the Trump administration in the course of enforcing our laws has at times asked for state and local cooperation across many sectors. This state has always been on the side of law enforcement, and we’ve had our own policies — such as banning sanctuary city policies — to ensure that law enforcement can do their job.”
What Senate Bill 76 would do
The latest draft of Brown’s bill requires governmental bodies that have custody of an individual subject to an immigration detainer request — such as county jails or local law enforcement agencies holding someone after an arrest — to notify the judge overseeing bail decisions that the individual is subject to an ICE detainer request.
It also requires those agencies to record the detainer in the individual’s case file, comply with the detainer and inform the individual that they are being held pursuant to the request.
Judges who receive notice of a detainer would be required to ensure that notice is recorded in the court’s record.
The bill also directs the Indiana Department of Correction to adopt statewide rules for how county jails must cooperate with ICE. In practice, that would require jails to follow uniform procedures when ICE asks that someone be held for pickup.
Officers who complete department-approved training would be granted an affirmative defense in certain civil actions. The provision is intended to shield law enforcement from legal liability when they follow the state’s required standards for cooperating with ICE.
Senate Bill 76 further allows the governor to withhold grants or state funding from a governmental body for up to a year if it’s found to have violated detainer-related requirements laid out in the legislation.
It also strengthens prohibitions on state or local entities — including public colleges and universities — limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law, regardless of whether that enforcement is carried out by federal, state or local agencies, Brown noted.
Other provisions in the bill would tighten enforcement against employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers; require state agencies to submit immigration-related reports to lawmakers; and expand the state’s ability to pursue “indecent nuisance” actions in cases tied to human trafficking, allowing government entities to recover investigative and court costs.
A similar immigration enforcement bill debated during the 2025 session advanced from the House but ultimately died in the Senate after Brown refused to give it a hearing.
National tensions fuel Statehouse debate
Debate on the Senate floor unfolded against a backdrop of heightened national tensions surrounding immigration enforcement and ICE operations.
Democrats pointed to two recent deaths involving federal agents in Minnesota and urged lawmakers to slow down.
“Two people have died at the hands of ICE agents,” said Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, explaining his no vote. “We have a responsibility as legislators to put forward public policy that protects against those things.”
But at least one Republican pushed back.
“I want you to stop and think for just a minute of how different things would be in Minnesota if that state would simply let the ICE officials into their jails to get the people that have broken our immigration law and that are already in custody,” said Sen. Mike Gaskill, R-Pendleton. “Think how much easier things would be in Minnesota if political leaders of that state were not inciting an army of citizens who think it’s okay to attack law enforcement.”
Gaskill described incidents in which ICE agents have been targeted and criticized Democratic lawmakers for what he called a “mischaracterization” of immigration enforcement.
“Our immigration laws were passed in Congress by Democrats and Republicans years ago,” he said. “It’s just a matter of, are we going to enforce them, or are we not?”
Democratic senators warned the bill would strain already overcrowded county jails, divert local law enforcement resources and further undermine trust between police and immigrant communities.
“County jails across the state are already full,” said Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington. “Yet, this bill demands more holds, more time in custody and more administrative burden and not taking into account even constitutional rights.”
She described the legislation as “virtue signaling with real and devastating consequences” and argued that local governments would be left to absorb costs and fallout.
Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, additionally referenced opposition from Indianapolis law enforcement during similar debates last year.
“The Fraternal Order of Police in Indianapolis had a press conference and they opposed that type of legislation,” Qaddoura noted. “It diverts local resources of law enforcement to enforce federal law, and that will break the trust between law enforcement and our communities.”
Indiana attorney general still opposed
But Brown rejected claims that the bill targets immigrants broadly.
“If you are here legally, this bill doesn’t pertain to you,” Brown maintained. “If you are here legally and you continue to abide by our laws, this bill doesn’t pertain to you.”
She said the bill’s intent is to prevent “rogue units of government or higher ed” from impeding enforcement and to ensure law enforcement has the training it has requested.
“Allow law enforcement to do their jobs, enforce the laws that we have in our books, federal, state or local,” Brown said. “And if you do not, there will be consequences.”
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita — who has previously criticized Brown’s bill — remained sharply skeptical on Monday.
In a statement to the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Rokita called the bill “window dressing,” saying Brown is “desperately trying to dig herself out of a hole with conservatives.”
Although he acknowledged that recent amendments made the bill “marginally better,” Rokita said it remains “toothless” and argued stronger enforcement language is still available.
He said the “FAIRNESS Act” — a controversial, previously unsuccessful federal immigration bill — “is still available and can be put into” the Indiana bill.
“If you want to talk about virtue signaling, using words to describe this bill as aligning with hate and fear,” Brown said in closing, “the underlying pinnings of this bill are to allow law enforcement to do their jobs and enforce the laws that we have on our books.”
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.