HB 4079
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The enrolled measure requires Oregon public school districts and higher education institutions to adopt policies mandating notice when federal immigration authorities enter their property for enforcement purposes, establishes statutory liability immunity for staff acting reasonably in good faith, removes mandatory cooperation requirements with federal immigration agents for certain criminal cases, and sets a September 30, 2026 effective date. Material consequences include administrative policy development, biennial training mandates, standardized notification protocols, and reduced legal exposure for educational employees, without direct state or local revenue impact.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The legislative shift from the minority report version to the enrolled text—specifically the removal of mandatory cooperation with federal immigration authorities for felony and Class A misdemeanor cases alongside the addition of liability immunity and notice requirements—suggests a policy choice to prioritize educational continuity, staff safety, and institutional discretion over uniform law enforcement coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Must draft, adopt, and publish policies meeting specific content, training, and notification standards; define campus boundaries; and submit reporting requirements to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Will receive standardized notices regarding federal immigration enforcement presence on campus, with statutory protections against disclosure of personally identifiable information or data threatening health/safety.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
May elect to receive notices under the new policy framework, expanding their awareness of enforcement activities on school grounds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Gain statutory liability immunity for reasonable, good-faith acts under the measure, but must complete mandated training, verify federal credentials, and follow notification protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Educational institutions will incur minimal administrative costs to draft policies, update handbooks/websites, and schedule biennial training. Staff obligations shift toward verifying federal credentials, recording presence, and issuing expedient electronic notices while avoiding disclosure of protected information. Eligibility for notice is tied to grade levels and campus boundaries defined by governing boards. Enforcement relies on institutional compliance rather than state penalties, with the Higher Education Coordinating Commission tasked with boundary reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Students with undocumented status and their families
A school district successfully navigates a federal immigration enforcement action without disrupting classes or disclosing student data, preserving educational access for vulnerable populations while maintaining full legal immunity for staff who followed the new protocol.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Campus administrators and students
An institution misinterprets 'expediently as possible' during a complex multi-agency scenario, delaying notices until after students have been removed from campus, triggering community distrust and potential civil claims despite the immunity provision's good-faith requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The text creates discretionary boundaries and timing allowances that lack external auditing mechanisms, relying entirely on institutional self-reporting and immunity thresholds.
Sources · Enrolled
The measure trades mandatory cooperation with federal immigration enforcement for institutional autonomy and liability protection, prioritizing educational continuity and privacy over uniform law enforcement coordination.
Creates fragmented compliance standards across districts and potentially complicates federal-state law enforcement coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Relies on institutional self-reporting and discretionary timing, which may lead to inconsistent application during enforcement events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version removes the mandatory cooperation requirement with federal immigration authorities for felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, replaces State Board of Education/HECC model policy authority with consistency requirements tied to Attorney General model policies under ORS 180.810, adds statutory liability immunity for staff acting in good faith, adjusts training frequency (biennial for K-12; annual initial plus biennial subsequent for higher ed), introduces a medical care exemption for higher education campuses, and changes the effective date from immediate passage to September 30, 2026. It also adds a specific HECC reporting requirement for campus boundaries.
Removed mandatory cooperation with federal immigration authorities for certain criminal cases.
Shifts institutional response from enforcement assistance to notification and boundary management.
Sources · Enrolled; Minority Report A-Engrossed
Added statutory liability immunity for reasonable, good-faith acts under the measure.
Reduces legal exposure for educators and administrators during enforcement events.
Sources · Enrolled
Replaced State Board of Education/HECC model policy authority with consistency requirements tied to Attorney General model policies under ORS 180.810.
Aligns institutional policies with existing state confidentiality frameworks rather than creating new regulatory structures.
Sources · Enrolled
Adjusted training frequency and added a medical care exemption for higher education campuses.
Reduces administrative burden while addressing specific operational scenarios unique to university health services.
Sources · Enrolled
Changed effective date from immediate passage to September 30, 2026.
Removes emergency declaration status, allowing standard implementation timelines.
Sources · Enrolled
Tradeoff: The enrolled text prioritizes institutional discretion and liability protection over mandatory law enforcement coordination, reducing immediate operational friction for schools while potentially complicating federal-state enforcement alignment.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the enrolled bill text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
Would legally mandate all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies, plus all public K-12 school and higher education employees, to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding any person charged with or convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor who enters school property or a campus. This overrides prior discretionary confidentiality frameworks and shifts institutional posture from notification and policy management to mandatory assistance, altering campus safety dynamics and legal exposure for staff.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to align Oregon public institutions with federal immigration enforcement priorities following the January 2025 revocation of the 2011 ICE sensitive-locations memo, responding to reported impacts on school operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
Must assist federal immigration authorities on campus when the felony or Class A misdemeanor threshold is met, removing prior discretion to decline assistance under state confidentiality models.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
Assumed mandatory cooperation duty; loss of discretion under existing ORS 180.810 confidentiality frameworks; required to update policies and training.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Same mandatory cooperation duty as K-12 staff; must align institutional policies with the new Section 6 requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
Potential chilling effect on attendance and participation; altered campus safety environment despite continued notification requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Must revise institutional policies to incorporate the cooperation mandate, delineate campus boundaries, and update biennial training curricula.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Staff lose discretion to decline assistance when the felony or Class A misdemeanor threshold is met, creating a mandatory duty to assist federal immigration authorities on campus. Governing boards must revise institutional policies to incorporate the cooperation mandate and update biennial training curricula. Compliance costs remain minimal per legislative fiscal analysis, but operational risks increase due to potential conflicts with existing state confidentiality models and heightened liability exposure for staff navigating warrant verification versus mandatory cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Staff Measure Summary A
Public safety and law enforcement
Federal authorities successfully apprehend a violent felon on campus with full institutional support, preventing imminent harm and ensuring swift judicial processing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
Students, families, and educational operations
A student or staff member with a minor Class A misdemeanor record is detained or questioned by federal immigration authorities on campus due to the mandatory cooperation requirement, triggering widespread fear, reduced attendance, and significant disruption to educational operations despite no direct threat to safety.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation only for individuals charged with or convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors who enter school property or campuses. Weak enforcement, misclassification of warrant types, or duty creep could lead staff to assist in immigration enforcement beyond the statutory threshold, use 'cooperation' as a pretext to gather unrelated immigration status data, or improperly detain individuals without judicial warrants, potentially violating privacy statutes and federal enforcement guidelines.
Sources · Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Mandating institutional cooperation with federal immigration enforcement on campus prioritizes law enforcement alignment and potential public safety over staff discretion, student trust, and existing state confidentiality protections. Upsides include clearer legal posture for addressing serious crimes on campus; downsides include erosion of sanctuary norms, potential chilling effects on school attendance, and increased liability and training burdens.
Clearer legal posture for addressing serious crimes on campus; streamlined coordination with federal authorities during enforcement actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -MR6 — proposed amendment
Erosion of existing state confidentiality norms; potential chilling effects on school attendance and campus participation; increased liability exposure for staff navigating warrant verification versus mandatory cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied amendment text, fiscal statements, and staff summaries. No external speculation is included.
The amendment would legally mandate that all state and local law enforcement agencies, along with employees and officers of school districts and higher education institutions, cooperate with federal immigration authorities when a person charged with or convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor enters school property or a campus. This shifts the legal posture from discretionary policy development focused on notice and verification to mandatory cooperation, potentially altering how educational institutions and local agencies interact with federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit override of other Oregon law and the focus on mandatory cooperation for individuals with serious criminal charges suggests a legislative intent to align state and local educational and law enforcement protocols with federal immigration enforcement priorities in sensitive locations, possibly responding to changes in federal enforcement posture such as the 2025 revocation of ICE's sensitive locations memo.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Legally required to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding specified individuals on school or campus property, overriding prior discretionary or confidentiality-based protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Legally required to cooperate under the same conditions, shifting duties from policy-based notice and verification to mandatory assistance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Same mandatory cooperation requirement applies to campus settings, altering institutional response frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
May face increased visibility of federal immigration enforcement on educational property, potentially affecting attendance, institutional trust, and privacy expectations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Must revise institutional policies to reflect mandatory cooperation mandates rather than the original notice, verification, and immunity framework.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Obligations shift from discretionary policy development (notice, warrant verification, legal consultation) to mandatory cooperation for specified criminal charges. Training requirements would need to be revised to cover cooperation protocols rather than confidentiality procedures. Liability immunity provisions in the original bill may become less relevant or require adjustment given the new mandatory duty. Annual reporting and model policy development by the Department of Education and Higher Education Coordinating Commission would focus on compliance tracking for cooperation mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Public safety authorities and school districts
A school district could swiftly assist federal authorities in apprehending a dangerous individual with a felony warrant who has entered campus, potentially preventing violence or ensuring public safety without legal ambiguity about local agency obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Students and staff with minor criminal records
A student or staff member with a Class A misdemeanor charge could trigger mandatory cooperation and potential immigration enforcement action on campus, leading to family separation, disruption of education, and chilling effects on attendance for immigrant communities, despite the original bill's intent to protect school environments.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation for individuals charged with or convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors who enter educational property. However, weak enforcement safeguards or broad interpretation of cooperate could lead to duty creep, where local agencies or school staff routinely share information or facilitate access beyond the statutory scope, effectively turning schools into immigration enforcement zones contrary to Oregon's historical confidentiality framework and federal sensitive-location guidance.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure trades educational privacy and institutional autonomy for guaranteed state/local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement on campus. Upsides include clearer legal obligations for law enforcement and potential public safety benefits in apprehending serious offenders. Downsides include erosion of trust between immigrant communities and schools, increased administrative burdens to comply with mandatory cooperation, and potential conflicts with existing Oregon confidentiality statutes.
Clearer legal obligations for law enforcement and potential public safety benefits in apprehending serious offenders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Erosion of trust between immigrant communities and schools, increased administrative burdens to comply with mandatory cooperation, and potential conflicts with existing Oregon confidentiality statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly states its operative mandate and override clause. Fiscal and staff analyses confirm the shift from policy-based notice to mandatory cooperation. No official rationale is provided, so possible rationale is cautiously inferred from statutory language and contextual background.
If adopted, the amendment would require all Oregon public K-12 school districts and higher education institutions to adopt, publish, and implement standardized policies governing their responses when federal immigration authorities enter their property for enforcement purposes. It mandates specific notice protocols to students, parents, staff, and contractors; requires biennial training for designated administrators; establishes statutory liability immunity for good-faith compliance; and sets a September 30, 2026 effective date.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The statutory requirement for standardized notice protocols, biennial training, and liability immunity suggests a legislative design aimed at reducing institutional legal exposure while mandating transparency during federal enforcement events, as evidenced by the explicit carve-outs for safety threats and court orders alongside mandatory electronic notification timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Must draft, adopt, and publish compliance policies; designate administrators; and coordinate biennial training.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Legally tasked with confirming federal authority presence, verifying credentials, recording events, and issuing notices.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Will receive standardized notices regarding enforcement on campus; may experience operational disruptions or altered school environments.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Will encounter institutional notice protocols and designated verification procedures when entering property for enforcement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Institutions will allocate administrative resources to draft policies, update handbooks and websites in culturally appropriate languages, and schedule training. Designated staff must verify credentials, record presence, and issue notices via electronic channels. The liability immunity provision reduces legal risk for good-faith compliance but does not shield actions outside the statute or those violating court orders.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
District administrators and vulnerable students
A district utilizes the mandated notice protocol to rapidly coordinate with families and staff during an unannounced enforcement action, enabling safe student relocation while relying on the statutory immunity provision to shield administrators from subsequent litigation regarding their response timeline.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Institutional leadership and campus community
An institution interprets the expedient notification requirement narrowly and delays communication pending internal legal review, causing prolonged campus disruption and eroding community trust, while potentially facing liability if a court determines the delay exceeded reasonable bounds despite the immunity clause.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The statute grants discretion over safety and legal exemptions without mandating external audit or justification for withholding information, creating a pathway for duty creep where institutions classify routine enforcement events as safety threats to avoid notification requirements.
Sources · Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The measure trades administrative burden and operational disruption for standardized transparency and reduced legal liability, balancing institutional compliance costs against community notification and staff protection. Upsides include predictable response protocols and statutory immunity; downsides include mandatory training costs, potential campus disruptions from notices, and reliance on institutional discretion to balance safety exemptions with transparency mandates.
Predictable, legally defensible response protocols reduce institutional confusion during enforcement events.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Statutory immunity lowers litigation risk for administrators acting in good faith.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Mandatory biennial training and multilingual policy publication impose recurring administrative costs.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Notice requirements may trigger campus disruptions or community anxiety during enforcement events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly defines obligations, notice requirements, training mandates, and immunity provisions. Fiscal statements confirm minimal revenue impact. Staff summaries provide contextual background without contradicting the statutory language.
If adopted, the amendment would require all Oregon public school districts and higher education institutions to adopt local policies mandating notification to students, parents, staff, and contractors whenever federal immigration authorities are confirmed on campus for enforcement purposes. It establishes notice content rules, mandates biennial training, grants civil immunity for compliance actions, removes state-level reporting and model policy mandates, and sets a September 30, 2026 effective date.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment shifts policy adoption and notice requirements from state-level model policies and reporting to local institutional discretion while adding explicit immunity provisions. This suggests a legislative aim to standardize transparency during federal enforcement visits while reducing administrative burden on state agencies by delegating implementation and liability protection to local entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Must draft, adopt, publish, and update local policies; designate administrators; provide training; and delineate campus boundaries for higher ed.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Will receive standardized notices about federal presence on campus; may experience operational disruption or anxiety depending on notice content.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Subject to training requirements; designated administrators bear confirmation/notice duties; gain civil immunity for good-faith compliance.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Must navigate local notification protocols when entering campuses for enforcement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Institutions will incur administrative costs for policy drafting, website translation, and staff training. Notice delivery must use existing electronic methods expediently. Immunity reduces litigation risk for staff acting in good faith. The medical care exemption creates a specific operational carve-out for higher ed health centers.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Students and families in high-enforcement areas
A district rapidly notifies families via automated alerts during an unannounced federal operation, allowing vulnerable students to be safely picked up early without disclosing PII or violating court orders, preserving trust and safety.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Institutions and staff
An institution misclassifies a routine administrative visit as immigration enforcement (or vice versa), triggering unnecessary campus-wide panic, operational disruption, or legal exposure if the notice inadvertently reveals protected student data despite the prohibition.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits institutions to withhold notices if disclosure 'may threaten the health or safety' of students/employees or is prohibited by court order. Weak enforcement or broad interpretation of these exceptions could allow districts to systematically avoid notification, effectively nullifying the transparency mandate without violating the statute.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes institutional flexibility and staff liability protection over uniform state oversight and standardized reporting. Upsides include reduced administrative burden on state agencies and clearer legal safeguards for school personnel; downsides include fragmented policy standards across districts and loss of centralized data on federal enforcement activity in schools.
Reduced administrative burden on state agencies by delegating implementation to local entities.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Clearer legal safeguards for school personnel through explicit civil immunity provisions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Fragmented policy standards across districts due to local discretion over notice content and delivery.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Loss of centralized data on federal enforcement activity in schools due to removed reporting mandates.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is strictly derived from the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative summaries. No speculation beyond bounded inferences is included.
If adopted, the amendment would override Oregon’s existing confidentiality protections and replace the bill’s original notice-and-policy framework with a mandatory duty for all state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as public school and higher education employees, to cooperate with federal immigration authorities when apprehending or processing individuals charged with or convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors on school property or campuses. Material consequences include shifting institutional roles from protective and neutral to cooperative, creating a legally enforceable compliance obligation for educators and officers, altering campus safety dynamics, and triggering mandatory policy revisions across all public education entities.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to ensure federal immigration enforcement can proceed on educational grounds without state-level confidentiality barriers when serious criminal charges are involved.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must cooperate with federal immigration authorities for specified crimes on school or campus property, overriding prior discretion or confidentiality directives.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Legally required to assist in qualifying federal immigration actions; must update policies to reflect this duty rather than the original notice and confidentiality focus.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Same mandatory cooperation duty applies to campus property; must revise institutional policies and training accordingly.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
May experience altered campus safety environments and reduced privacy protections when federal immigration enforcement occurs on educational grounds for specified offenses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
School staff and law enforcement must shift from verification and notice protocols to active cooperation when the felony or Class A misdemeanor threshold is met on school or campus property.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Institutional boards must draft and adopt new policies, provide biennial training, and ensure compliance with the override provision, replacing prior model confidentiality guidance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official analysis indicates minimal direct fiscal impact, but indirect costs will arise from mandatory policy drafting, legal review, and training requirements to align with the new cooperation mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Federal immigration authorities gain a clearer statutory pathway to operate on educational property for specified cases, potentially increasing enforcement presence on campuses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Creates a legally enforceable duty; failure to cooperate could expose employees or agencies to liability or administrative action, while compliance may increase tensions with communities that previously relied on Oregon’s confidentiality model policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
School district administrators and law enforcement
A school district successfully prevents a violent felony suspect from fleeing campus by immediately coordinating with federal immigration authorities under the new mandate, leading to a swift apprehension that protects students and staff without prolonged uncertainty.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Higher education institutions and student populations
A nonviolent Class A misdemeanor case triggers mandatory cooperation on a university campus, resulting in widespread student fear, decreased attendance, and significant disruption to academic operations as staff divert resources to compliance and legal counsel rather than education.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statutory language ties cooperation strictly to specific criminal charges and physical presence on educational property; however, ambiguous charge classifications or administrative pressure could stretch compliance obligations into unauthorized territory.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes federal immigration enforcement access on educational grounds for serious crimes over institutional privacy protections and community trust, creating a direct tension between compliance mandates and campus safety dynamics. Upsides include clearer legal pathways for apprehending individuals with serious criminal records on school property; downsides include potential erosion of student and family trust, increased operational burdens on educators, and heightened risk of campus disruption during enforcement actions.
Clearer statutory authority for law enforcement to address serious criminal cases involving federal immigration status on school grounds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Reduced ambiguity for officers and staff regarding when cooperation is legally required during enforcement actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Mandatory cooperation may conflict with established Oregon confidentiality model policies and undermine community trust in educational institutions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Increased operational and legal burdens on school districts and higher education institutions to draft policies, train staff, and manage enforcement-related disruptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment and official committee summaries. Fiscal impacts are explicitly documented as minimal or none by state revenue offices. Remaining uncertainties relate to legislative intent, jurisdictional overlap, and stakeholder impact, which are standard for proposed amendments prior to enactment.
The amendment would require all Oregon public school districts and higher education institutions to adopt, publish, and maintain internal policies mandating that designated administrators notify students, parents, staff, and opted-in community service providers whenever federal immigration authorities enter their property for enforcement purposes. Material consequences include standardized notification protocols across K-12 and postsecondary campuses, mandatory annual training for designated staff, explicit prohibitions on disclosing personally identifiable information or safety-compromising details, and the removal of state agency reporting mandates in favor of alignment with Attorney General model guidelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to streamline institutional compliance by aligning district and campus policies directly with existing Attorney General model confidentiality guidelines under ORS 180.810, while expanding notice recipients to include community-based service providers to support student welfare networks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must draft, adopt, publish, and annually update policies meeting specific content, training, and notice requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Bear responsibility for verifying federal authority presence, issuing notices, and completing annual training.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Will receive standardized electronic notices regarding federal immigration enforcement on campus, including location and operational impacts, but without personally identifiable information.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain an opt-in mechanism to receive direct notices when federal authorities are present for enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must operate under a framework where their presence triggers mandatory institutional notifications, though the text does not restrict their lawful access or warrant execution.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Institutions must establish clear chains of command for notice delivery, integrate policy language into student handbooks and websites in culturally appropriate languages, and schedule annual training for designated staff. The measure carries minimal fiscal impact per legislative analysis, though districts will incur administrative costs for policy drafting, translation, training delivery, and electronic notification system adjustments. Compliance relies on internal board oversight rather than state agency audits. The jurisdiction of the law remains Oregon statutory authority over public education entities, even though it incorporates federal definitions (e.g., 'Federal immigration authority' per ORS 180.805) and a federal campus definition (Clery Act). The text does not grant institutions authority to deny lawful access or warrants; it only mandates transparency upon entry.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Students & community-based service providers
A district uses the opt-in provider network to rapidly coordinate mental health and legal aid for undocumented students during a federal enforcement event, preventing trauma and ensuring continuity of education without violating privacy laws.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Campus administrators & institutional liability
A campus administrator misinterprets 'expediently as possible' or 'threaten health or safety' to delay or withhold notices during a high-profile enforcement action, triggering community distrust and potential liability for noncompliance with the statutory mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure balances transparent institutional response to federal enforcement against operational continuity and privacy protection by mandating standardized notices while explicitly restricting disclosures that could compromise safety or violate existing law. Upsides include predictable community communication, protected student privacy, and aligned compliance with Attorney General guidelines; downsides include administrative burden on districts, potential for notice fatigue or misapplication of safety exemptions, and removal of state-level reporting that previously enabled legislative oversight.
Predictable community communication during enforcement events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Protected student privacy through explicit prohibitions on disclosing personally identifiable information.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Aligned compliance with Attorney General model guidelines under ORS 180.810.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Administrative burden on districts for policy drafting, translation, training delivery, and electronic notification system adjustments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential for notice fatigue or misapplication of safety exemptions to delay disclosures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Removal of state-level reporting that previously enabled legislative oversight.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative fiscal/revenue impact statements. No enacted provisions or external speculation are included.
The amendment would require Oregon school districts and public higher education institutions to adopt and publish policies mandating expedited electronic notice to students, parents/guardians, employees, and designated community-based service providers whenever federal immigration authorities enter school property or campuses for enforcement purposes, while explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of personally identifiable information or data that could threaten safety.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to standardize institutional responses to federal immigration operations following the revocation of prior federal guidance on sensitive locations, using Oregon’s existing statutory framework for confidentiality policies to ensure consistent notification while preserving compliance with state privacy and safety mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must draft, adopt, publish, and maintain policies; designate administrators; define property boundaries; establish opt-in mechanisms for service providers; and fund annual training without state appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Bear direct operational responsibility for monitoring federal presence, issuing expedited electronic notices, and completing annual training on notice requirements and Attorney General model policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Become entitled to receive notifications about enforcement activities on campus; may experience operational disruption or reassurance depending on notice timing and district implementation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Subject to institutional notification protocols when entering designated properties for enforcement, though the mandate remains an Oregon-law change that does not alter federal authority or jurisdiction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Districts and institutions must allocate administrative time to draft policies, define school property boundaries, establish opt-in mechanisms for service providers, and conduct annual training on notice requirements and Attorney General model policies. Costs are limited to internal staff time and minor updates to handbooks and websites, with no state appropriations provided. Enforcement relies on institutional compliance rather than external oversight, and the mandate applies only to Oregon public education entities despite incorporating federal definitions by reference.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
School districts and higher education institutions
A district rapidly triggers automated alerts during an unannounced federal operation, allowing students and staff to follow established safety protocols without panic, while the institution simultaneously withholds personally identifiable information to comply with state confidentiality statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
School districts and higher education institutions
An institution delays notice due to ambiguous timing standards or overcautious legal review, causing prolonged uncertainty among families, or conversely issues a broad alert that inadvertently reveals protected information or draws unauthorized crowds, creating a safety hazard.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The distinction rests on whether withholding or disclosing information aligns with the explicit statutory exceptions versus using those exceptions as a blanket justification to evade notice obligations or breach privacy laws.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure balances transparent stakeholder notification against institutional discretion to withhold information for safety or legal compliance, yielding predictable response protocols and reduced panic at the cost of administrative burden and potential inconsistent implementation.
Predictable, uniform notification protocols reduce student and staff anxiety during federal operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Explicit prohibition on disclosing personally identifiable information or safety-compromising data aligns institutional actions with existing state confidentiality statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Administrative burden falls entirely on districts and institutions without dedicated funding, potentially straining limited staff resources.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Ambiguous standards for "expediently" and broad safety exceptions may produce inconsistent notice timing or selective withholding across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, official fiscal statements, and staff summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
48 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4079 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 5 through 26 and delete pages 2 through 5 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -5
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 180.805, ORS 180.810, ORS 181, ORS 23, ORS 352.002, Effective date.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -3
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 180.805, ORS 180.810, ORS 181, ORS 23, ORS 352.002, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number HB 4079.
Chief sponsors: Representative Sarah McDonald, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Willy Chotzen, Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Senator Lew Frederick
Regular sponsors: Representative Paul Evans, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Rob Nosse, Representative Hai Pham, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Jules Walters, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Representative Daniel Nguyen, Representative Susan McLain, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Pam Marsh, Representative Jason Kropf, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Wlnsvey Campos
House carrier
Representative Sarah McDonald
Consideration Of Committee And Minority Reports · Version A
House carrier
Representative Sarah McDonald
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
House carrier
Representative Darin Harbick
Consideration Of Committee And Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Courtney Neron Misslin
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
48 events
Full timeline
48 entries shown.
Chapter 48, (2026 Laws): Effective date September 30, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Third reading. Carried by Neron Misslin. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 10--Anderson, Hayden, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 2--Drazan, Girod.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng. bill.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 2 · Room HR B · Directs school district boards and governing bodies of institutions of higher education to adopt policies that address how the school district or the institution of higher education will respond when a federal immigration authority enters school property or a campus.
IS_Impact HB 4079 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 2 · Room HR B · Directs school district boards and governing bodies of institutions of higher education to adopt policies that address how the school district or the institution of higher education will respond when a federal immigration authority enters school property or a campus.
Referred to Education.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Diehl.
Third reading. Carried by McDonald. Passed.
Ayes, 35; Nays, 22--Boice, Boshart Davis, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Diehl, Edwards, Elmer, Harbick, Helfrich, Levy B, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Sanchez, Scharf, Skarlatos, Smith G, Wallan, Wright, Yunker; Excused, 2--Lewis, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 1--Cate.
In absence of motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report, bill advanced to third reading and final consideration.
Second reading.
Minority Report A-Engrossed bill text posted
House Minority Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Minority Recommendation: Do pass with different amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 7 · Room HR 50 · Directs school district boards and governing bodies of institutions of higher education to adopt policies that address how the school district or the institution of higher education will respond when a federal immigration authority enters school property or a campus.
Amendment -MR6 minority report
IS_Impact HB 4079 5
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -5 adopted
Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 5 · Room HR 50 · Directs school district boards and governing bodies of institutions of higher education to adopt policies that address how the school district or the institution of higher education will respond when a federal immigration authority enters school property or a campus.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR 50 · Directs school district boards and governing bodies of institutions of higher education to adopt policies that address how the school district or the institution of higher education will respond when a federal immigration authority enters school property or a campus.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Education.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Enrolled bill text posted”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.