SB 1587
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
SB 1587 prohibits Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker provides a written attestation that the data will not be sold or transferred to any entity using it for federal immigration enforcement. The measure creates exceptions for court orders, public records disclosures, and publicly available information shared under consistent terms. It takes effect 91 days after the legislative session ends.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Legislative staff identified a 'Lack of existing prohibitions on public bodies' sale of data' as an issue discussed, noting that Oregon's consumer privacy laws (OCPA) specifically exclude public bodies, leaving a gap in protections for government-held data regarding data brokers.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Staff Measure Summary B; Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit restriction on transferring data to entities using it for 'federal immigration law' enforcement suggests the measure aims to prevent Oregon government records from being leveraged by federal immigration authorities through commercial data channels.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
State agencies, cities, counties, and other public entities must implement a process to collect and evaluate written attestations from data brokers before sharing PII. They bear the administrative burden of verifying attestation validity and may face operational disruptions if brokers refuse to comply.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Entities defined under ORS 646A.593 must provide written attestations limiting the use of Oregon government PII regarding federal immigration enforcement to contract with public bodies. Refusal or false attestation results in loss of access to public body data.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Individuals whose PII is held by public bodies gain a layer of protection against their government data being sold or transferred to entities that might use it for federal immigration enforcement via data brokers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Public bodies must update vendor contracts and data-sharing protocols to require the specific attestation. Data brokers must modify terms of service or provide specific attestations for Oregon public body contracts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office report no revenue impact and minimal fiscal impact on government expenditures, though agencies may incur administrative costs to implement compliance processes.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B; IS_Impact SB 1587 4
The text relies on public bodies rejecting attestation if they 'reasonably believe' it contains material misrepresentations. It does not establish a private right of action, civil penalties, or a designated state agency for enforcement of this specific provision.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Oregon Residents
A data broker receives PII from the Department of Transportation and sells it to a commercial entity that subsequently uses that data to assist federal immigration agents in identifying undocumented individuals, leading to deportations. Under SB 1587, the public body would be prohibited from providing the data initially, preventing the chain of disclosure and protecting residents from government-facilitated immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Public Bodies and Data Brokers
A legitimate data broker offering fraud detection services for a county's benefit programs refuses to sign the attestation because their standard contract allows transfer to affiliates that could theoretically be used by any government entity, including federal agencies. The public body rejects the attestation under Section 1(2)(b), forcing the broker out of the market and leaving the public body without access to essential fraud prevention tools, potentially increasing program costs or errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The reliance on subjective belief without an objective standard or external audit mechanism allows public bodies to interpret 'material misrepresentations' broadly, potentially extending beyond the text's focus on immigration enforcement.
Sources · Enrolled
The measure balances the protection of Oregon residents' government-held personal information from being funneled into federal immigration enforcement against the administrative burden on public bodies and potential restrictions on their ability to contract with data brokers who refuse specific use-limiting attestations.
Prevents Oregon government data from supporting federal immigration enforcement via commercial channels; fills a privacy gap for public bodies left by the OCPA.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Imposes administrative compliance costs on public bodies; may disrupt legitimate data broker relationships if brokers cannot or will not provide the required attestation; lacks clear enforcement mechanisms or penalties for violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version removes the 'declaring an emergency' language from the bill title and Section 2, replacing it with 'prescribing an effective date.' It adds a new exception allowing public bodies to disclose publicly available information under the same terms and conditions as available to the general public. The effective date is changed to the 91st day after adjournment sine die, removing any emergency effective date provision.
Removed emergency declaration and associated immediate effective date; replaced with standard post-session effective date.
Eliminates the urgency of implementation and aligns the measure with standard legislative timing.
Sources · Enrolled; House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Added exception for publicly available information disclosed under consistent terms.
Clarifies that public bodies may continue to share data that is already public without triggering the attestation requirement, provided the disclosure terms match those available to the general public.
Sources · Enrolled; House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The removal of the emergency declaration reduces the urgency of compliance but does not alter the substantive tradeoff between privacy protection and administrative burden.
high confidence. The enrolled bill text is complete and unambiguous regarding the prohibition, attestation requirement, exceptions, and effective date. Official fiscal and staff analyses are provided for the relevant version.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker provides a written attestation that the data will not be sold or transferred for immigration enforcement, add an exception for publicly available information disclosed under standard terms, and delay implementation until 91 days after the legislative session ends.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to 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 reflects a legislative compromise to address implementation concerns by narrowing the scope of the prohibition and removing the emergency declaration, while preserving the core privacy safeguard against immigration enforcement data transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Must implement processes to verify and retain written broker attestations, reject materially false ones, and adjust data-sharing workflows to accommodate the new exception for publicly available records.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Must draft and submit specific written attestations regarding immigration enforcement use before receiving PII from public bodies, potentially altering contract terms or declining certain data requests.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Gain indirect privacy protection by reducing the likelihood that their personal data held by government entities will be funneled to commercial brokers for immigration enforcement purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Public bodies will need to screen data broker requests against the new attestation requirement and the public records exception before releasing PII.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Verification of written attestations, documentation of rejections for material misrepresentations, and compliance with the delayed effective date will be required.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Minimal direct fiscal impact per legislative revenue and fiscal offices, but administrative costs will arise from legal review, IT system updates, and staff training.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Existing public records access under ORS 192.311 to 192.478 and court-ordered disclosures remain unaffected; publicly available data disclosed under standard terms is exempted.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
The measure applies to Oregon public bodies and uses Oregon statutory definitions (ORS 432.005, ORS 646A.593, ORS 174.109); it does not incorporate federal definitions or override federal immigration enforcement authority.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Oregon public bodies and residents
A public agency successfully blocks a data broker from aggregating sensitive resident location or financial records for resale to immigration enforcement contractors, preventing potential civil rights violations or targeted surveillance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
Data brokers and legitimate data users
A legitimate commercial or academic data broker is denied access to publicly available property or business records because the attestation requirement is applied overly broadly or lacks clear verification standards, causing operational delays and lost economic activity.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
The distinction rests on whether disclosures strictly follow statutory exceptions and whether attestation verification is substantively reviewed rather than treated as a formality.
Sources · Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Senate Amendments to Introduced
The measure trades administrative simplicity and unrestricted data flow for enhanced privacy safeguards against potential immigration enforcement misuse, while preserving existing public records access.
Targeted privacy protection and reduced risk of sensitive data exploitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Alignment with existing consumer privacy frameworks and broker registration requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Compliance burdens on government IT and legal staff for attestation tracking and legal review.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential friction in legitimate commercial or research data transactions due to reliance on broker self-certification without independent verification mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, current bill context, and official legislative revenue/fiscal/staff documents. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to data brokers unless the broker provides a written attestation that the data will not be sold or transferred to entities using it for federal immigration enforcement, with exceptions for public records requests and court orders. If adopted, it creates a new compliance obligation for state and local agencies, restricts commercial data flows from government records, and shifts regulatory focus from broker conduct to government disclosure practices without establishing penalties or verification protocols for noncompliance.
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 measure appears designed to prevent Oregon government-held records from being funneled into commercial databases used for federal immigration enforcement, addressing a gap where the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act excludes public bodies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact SB 1587 A6; Staff Measure Summary A
Must implement attestation verification procedures for data broker requests; faces increased administrative burden and potential loss of commercial data-sharing channels. The amendment operates within Oregon statutory framework despite referencing federal immigration law purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Revenue Impact Statement A
Must provide written attestations regarding immigration enforcement use to access government-held PII; faces potential loss of a data source if attestation is rejected or deemed unverified.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain a procedural barrier against their government records being sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, though no direct private right of action is created for this specific provision.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
May face reduced access to Oregon government-held PII through commercial data broker channels, potentially increasing reliance on direct legal processes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public bodies must establish procedures to request, review, and retain written attestations from data brokers before disclosing PII. They must also assess a 'reasonably believes' standard for rejecting false attestations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Minimal direct fiscal impact per Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office statements, but indirect administrative costs will fall on affected agencies to draft policies, train staff, and monitor compliance. No explicit penalty or enforcement mechanism is created for public bodies that fail to comply; the statute relies on internal agency discretion.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public records requests under ORS 192.311–192.478 remain unaffected, meaning data brokers can still obtain PII through standard public records channels without the attestation requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Oregon residents and local governments
A county clerk successfully blocks a data broker from purchasing arrest records that would later be used to target undocumented residents for federal immigration raids, effectively shielding thousands of residents from indirect government surveillance without violating public records transparency laws.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
State agencies and commercial data users
A state agency, fearing administrative complexity or political liability, broadly interprets 'reasonably believes' to reject all data broker requests, inadvertently disrupting legitimate commercial research, academic studies, or public safety analytics that rely on aggregated government data for non-immigration purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statute lacks audit requirements, standardized attestation formats, or third-party verification mechanisms, leaving compliance entirely to agency discretion and broker self-reporting.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure trades administrative simplicity and unrestricted government data sharing for a targeted procedural barrier against immigration enforcement data flows, creating compliance costs for public bodies while offering no direct private enforcement mechanism or verification protocol.
Creates a transparent, attestation-based checkpoint that may reduce the volume of Oregon government records funneled into commercial databases used for federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Preserves public records transparency by explicitly exempting disclosures required under ORS 192.311–192.478 and court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Imposes unquantified administrative burdens on public bodies without providing implementation guidance, verification standards, or enforcement remedies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement A; Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Relies on self-reported broker attestations with no audit or penalty mechanism, creating risk of noncompliance or symbolic compliance that fails to materially restrict data flows.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
medium confidence. The amendment text is clear in its prohibitions and exceptions, but lacks implementation rules, verification mechanisms, or enforcement provisions. Official fiscal statements confirm minimal direct impact but do not address indirect administrative costs or operational feasibility.
The amendment would prohibit Oregon public agencies from sharing personally identifiable information with data brokers unless the broker submits a written certification that the data will not be sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, creating a new compliance verification step for state and local governments while preserving existing public records and court order exceptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — 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 aims to prevent government-held records from entering commercial databases that could be leveraged for federal immigration enforcement, shifting regulatory focus from private broker conduct to public sector data sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Must implement procedures to collect, review, and validate written attestations from data brokers before disclosing personally identifiable information, with authority to reject disclosures if the attestation contains material misrepresentations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Must draft and maintain compliant attestation language to access government-held personally identifiable information; failure to provide a valid attestation results in loss of data access.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain a procedural barrier against their government data being sold or transferred for federal immigration enforcement, though the protection does not apply to information already subject to public records laws or court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Public agencies will need to establish intake workflows to verify broker attestations and document rejections based on reasonable belief of material misrepresentation, falsehoods, or omissions. Data brokers must align their attestation language with the statutory standard. The measure does not generate direct revenue impact but imposes indirect administrative costs for legal review and compliance tracking. Eligibility for data access is now contingent on attestation validity rather than commercial contract terms. Enforcement relies on agency self-assessment rather than a dedicated regulatory body, and public records requests under ORS 192.311 through 192.478 remain unaffected. While the amendment incorporates definitions from existing Oregon statutes (ORS 646A.593, ORS 432.005, ORS 174.109), the operative restriction remains an Oregon-law change governing public bodies, not a federal or private-sector mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Oregon public bodies and residents
A public agency successfully identifies a material omission in a broker's attestation, preventing the transfer of sensitive housing or health records to a commercial database and blocking their subsequent use by federal immigration enforcement during a policy shift.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Oregon public bodies and data brokers
A data broker submits an attestation with legally ambiguous language that a public body's staff misclassifies as compliant, resulting in unauthorized disclosure that triggers administrative penalties or litigation against the agency for failing to catch material falsehoods.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The text relies on agency discretion to evaluate attestation validity without defining objective compliance standards or establishing an oversight mechanism, increasing reliance on internal legal review and raising the risk of inconsistent application.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure prioritizes preventing government data from fueling federal immigration enforcement over maintaining seamless public records compliance and administrative efficiency. Upsides include enhanced privacy safeguards for residents against potential immigration-related data exploitation; downsides include increased administrative burdens on public agencies, potential delays in lawful data sharing, and reliance on unverified broker attestations rather than direct regulatory oversight.
Enhanced privacy safeguards for residents against potential immigration-related data exploitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Increased administrative burdens on public agencies, potential delays in lawful data sharing, and reliance on unverified broker attestations rather than direct regulatory oversight.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is strictly derived from the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
42 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 SB 1587 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
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.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
Delete lines 4 through 25 of the printed bill and insert: 2 “SECTION 1.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number SB 1587.
Chief sponsors: Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Representative Willy Chotzen, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Farrah Chaichi, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Representative Lamar Wise
Regular sponsors: Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Kayse Jama, Senator James Manning Jr., Senator Mark Meek, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Senator Janeen Sollman, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Hai Pham, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Jules Walters
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading Of Senate Measures · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Wlnsvey Campos
Third Reading Of Senate Measures · Version A
House carrier
Representative Willy Chotzen
Third Reading Of Senate Bills · Version B
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Possible Consideration of House Amendments · Version B
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.
42 events
Full timeline
42 entries shown.
Effective date, June 5, 2026.
Chapter 96, 2026 Laws.
Governor signed.
Speaker signed.
President signed.
Senate concurred in House amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 11--Anderson, Girod, Hayden, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Third reading. Carried by Chotzen. Passed.
Ayes, 33; Nays, 14--Boice, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Edwards, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, McIntire, Owens, Reschke, Smith G, Wallan, Wright; Absent, 6--Boshart Davis, Harbick, Osborne, Scharf, Skarlatos, Yunker; Excused, 4--Diehl, Hartman, Levy E, Mannix; Excused for Business of the House, 3--Elmer, Javadi, Walters.
Second reading.
House Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed B-Engrossed.
Staff Measure Summary · Version B
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 3 · Room HR 50 · Prohibits public bodies from disclosing personally identifiable information to a data broker unless the data broker attests that the information will not be sold or transferred to any entity that will use it to enforce federal immigration law.
IS_Impact SB 1587 A6
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A6 adopted
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Campos, Prozanski. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 9--Anderson, Girod, Hayden, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 3--Drazan, Linthicum, Smith DB.
Carried over to 02-24 by unanimous consent.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 8 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
IS_Impact SB 1587 4
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -4 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 6 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
Amendment -4 proposed
Informational Meeting scheduled.
Informational Meeting
Heard · Agenda item 9 · Room HR C · Prohibits data brokers from providing data to others for purposes related to enforcement of civil law, except pursuant to a court order.
Referred to Judiciary.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
NDMENT: The amendment replaces the measure. BACKGROUND: In 2023, Oregon enacted House Bill 2052, requiring data brokers to register before collecting, selling, or licensing br
he 91st day following adjournment sine die. BACKGROUND: In 2023, Oregon enacted House Bill 2052, requiring data brokers to register before collecting, selling, or licensing br
“Effective date, June 5, 2026.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.