HB 4111
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
Latest analysis in progress. Showing the superseded Minority Report to B-Engrossed brief.
The bill restricts the admissibility of immigration status in civil trials unless strictly necessary for a claim, creates statutory employment protections for workers updating work authorization documents, expands Oregon’s legal definition of law enforcement profiling to include immigration status, and authorizes state and local agencies to coordinate with federal immigration officials regarding individuals convicted of felonies with named victims. Material consequences include mandatory confidential judicial screenings for immigration evidence, reduced employer liability for processing lawful status updates, expanded anti-profiling mandates for police, and new intergovernmental coordination authority that overrides prior statutory limits on specific violent crimes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
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 text appears designed to balance evidentiary fairness in civil litigation against prejudice risks while clarifying employer compliance duties and addressing law enforcement coordination gaps for specific violent offenses. The strict confidentiality and necessity thresholds for immigration evidence suggest an intent to prevent jury bias, while the explicit carve-out for federal verification compliance indicates a desire to shield employers from conflicting state and federal mandates. The felony coordination provision addresses prior statutory limits on intergovernmental cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Minority Report to B-Engrossed; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Immigration status evidence becomes presumptively inadmissible, requiring judicial screening via confidential motions before disclosure.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Employers gain explicit protection from liability when processing lawful work authorization updates or complying with federal verification systems; employees gain statutory recourse against retaliation for such updates.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Must apply an expanded anti-profiling definition that includes immigration status, while gaining new authority to coordinate with federal immigration officials regarding specific felony convictions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Must implement confidential post-trial motions, conduct in camera hearings, and manage sealed records for immigration-related evidence.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Employers will likely standardize document update processes without fear of retaliation claims. Civil attorneys must file detailed, confidential motions fifteen days pre-trial to introduce immigration status. Courts will allocate docket time for in camera proceedings and manage sealed records. Official analysis indicates minimal direct fiscal impact on government, though courts and agencies will incur administrative costs for new filing procedures and training. BOLI handles employment retaliation claims while circuit courts manage evidentiary motions. Access to justice may improve for immigrant workers fearing bias, but procedural hurdles could delay or complicate cases where status is genuinely relevant. Risk of increased litigation over what constitutes essential evidence or whether an employer's action falls under the federal compliance exception.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Minority Report to B-Engrossed; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Civil litigants and employees
A worker with a pending deportation order sues for wrongful termination after being fired upon learning of their status update. The court excludes immigration evidence as irrelevant to the discrimination claim, preventing jury prejudice, and awards full reinstatement and back pay under the new employment protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Civil litigants
A plaintiff in a complex commercial dispute relies on a witness’s immigration status to prove fraud or contract capacity. The court strictly applies the essential fact threshold, excludes the evidence via in camera review, and dismisses a meritorious claim due to inability to meet the burden of proof without that testimony.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
The text legally permits coordination solely for specific violent offenses. Weak enforcement or misclassification could lead to routine immigration enforcement disguised as felony coordination, chilling community reporting and stretching statutory boundaries.
Sources · Minority Report to B-Engrossed
The measure trades broader evidentiary disclosure and traditional law enforcement coordination for reduced jury bias in civil trials, clearer employer compliance shields, and expanded anti-profiling protections. Upsides include greater workplace stability for immigrant workers and more focused police accountability; downsides include potential evidentiary gaps that complicate legitimate civil claims and new intergovernmental cooperation authority that may stretch existing statutory boundaries.
Reduced jury bias in civil trials involving immigrant parties or witnesses.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Clearer statutory shield for employers processing lawful work authorization updates.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Expanded anti-profiling protections explicitly covering immigration status.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Procedural friction and potential evidentiary gaps in civil cases where immigration status is genuinely relevant.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
New intergovernmental coordination authority may create operational complexity or preemption conflicts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Minority Report to B-Engrossed
The current version incorporates a single substantive amendment from the Senate Judiciary minority report. It adds explicit authority for all state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Corrections, to coordinate with federal immigration authorities regarding individuals convicted of felonies with named victims in the indictment, notwithstanding prior statutory restrictions on intergovernmental coordination.
Added Section 8 permitting state and local law enforcement and DOC to coordinate with federal immigration authorities concerning persons convicted of a felony with a named victim in the indictment.
Overrides prior statutory limits on intergovernmental cooperation for specific violent crimes, expanding operational flexibility while maintaining narrow targeting criteria.
Sources · Minority Report to B-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The measure trades broader evidentiary disclosure and traditional law enforcement coordination for reduced jury bias in civil trials, clearer employer compliance shields, and expanded anti-profiling protections. Upsides include greater workplace stability for immigrant workers and more focused police accountability; downsides include potential evidentiary gaps that complicate legitimate civil claims and new intergovernmental cooperation authority that may stretch existing statutory boundaries.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided B-Engrossed bill text and official committee/fiscal summaries. No external speculation or legislative intent assumptions are made.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
The proposed amendment would mandate all Oregon state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding any person convicted of an Oregon felony, overriding existing Oregon laws that might limit such cooperation. If adopted, it would materially expand mandatory intergovernmental coordination in criminal justice processing, potentially altering current discretionary or restrictive cooperation policies across all jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — 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 text uses mandatory language ("shall cooperate") and an override clause ("Notwithstanding any other provision of Oregon law"), suggesting a legislative intent to eliminate jurisdictional discretion and ensure uniform LE assistance with federal immigration enforcement for felony convictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Must adjust operational protocols to facilitate cooperation with federal immigration authorities for convicted felons, overriding prior discretionary or restrictive policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Face a statutory increase in potential contact with federal immigration enforcement following conviction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Gain a direct state-law mandate for LE coordination in felony cases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Remain subject to the underlying bill’s evidentiary restrictions and employment protections, but this amendment carves out a broad law enforcement cooperation exception that operates independently of those civil provisions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
LE agencies will need to establish or modify information-sharing and assistance protocols for felony cases, potentially increasing administrative workload and training requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Official fiscal analyses indicate no direct revenue impact, but operational costs may shift to local budgets depending on coordination logistics.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4111 6; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Enforcement relies on agency compliance rather than explicit penalties, creating variability in implementation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
The mandate may reduce community trust in local LE among immigrant populations, potentially affecting crime reporting and public safety cooperation, while increasing federal reach into state criminal justice processing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Public safety and federal enforcement coordination
A violent felony suspect flees across county lines; mandatory cooperation triggers immediate federal assistance and resource sharing, leading to swift apprehension and enhanced victim protection.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Nonviolent felony offenders and local jail systems
A nonviolent felony offender with no immigration violations is held for federal transfer due to a clerical misclassification of their status or crime category, resulting in prolonged detention without state criminal justification and strained local jail capacity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits cooperation with federal immigration authorities specifically concerning persons convicted of an Oregon felony. A potentially unlawful outcome could arise from weak enforcement or duty creep if agencies expand "cooperation" to include non-felony stops, civil infractions, or routine traffic stops, misclassifying individuals to meet federal requests, or using the mandate to justify immigration-focused policing beyond the explicit felony scope.
Sources · Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
The measure trades expanded federal-state law enforcement coordination for potential erosion of local jurisdictional discretion and community trust. Upsides include ensuring consistent cooperation with federal immigration enforcement for serious crimes, potentially aiding public safety and federal priorities. Downsides include overriding existing Oregon legal constraints on LE cooperation, potentially straining local resources, and deterring crime reporting or community policing in immigrant populations.
Ensures consistent cooperation with federal immigration enforcement for serious crimes, potentially aiding public safety and federal priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
Overrides existing Oregon legal constraints on LE cooperation, potentially straining local resources, and deterring crime reporting or community policing in immigrant populations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A9 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment and official legislative summaries. No enacted status or unverified claims are presented.
The amendment would tighten the standard for admitting immigration status evidence in Oregon civil cases by requiring it to be essential to prove an element of a claim, mandate confidential post-trial motions and in camera hearings for such evidence, and explicitly protect employers from state liability when complying with federal work authorization verification or when third-party administrators act on updated documentation. Material consequences include reduced risk of immigration status being used as a prejudicial litigation tactic, clearer compliance pathways for employers managing federal I-9 requirements, and increased procedural steps for courts handling sensitive evidentiary requests.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -6 — 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.
Lawmakers likely sought to prevent immigration status from being weaponized as a prejudicial tactic in civil litigation while simultaneously clarifying that employers remain shielded from state retaliation claims when fulfilling federal employment verification obligations. This hypothesis is inferred from the amendment’s dual focus on restricting evidentiary use of immigration status and explicitly carving out safe harbors for federal compliance and third-party administrative actions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Face a higher evidentiary threshold for introducing their status and benefit from mandatory confidentiality protections that limit public exposure.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Gain explicit statutory assurance that actions taken to comply with federal work authorization verification are lawful, reducing fear of state-level retaliation claims.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Must implement new procedural requirements, including 15-day notice periods for confidential motions, in camera hearings, and secure handling of sensitive records.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
May encounter stricter procedural hurdles when attempting to use removal orders or work authorization data to calculate damages or prove reinstatement eligibility.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Parties must draft and file confidential motions at least 15 days before proceedings, specifying the exact purpose for introducing immigration-related evidence. Courts will need to schedule private hearings and maintain sealed records, increasing administrative workload. Employers can confidently update federal verification processes without fearing state liability, provided they do not independently discriminate. The measure may lower barriers to civil litigation for immigrant workers by reducing intimidation tactics, but could also delay proceedings due to mandatory notice periods and judicial review of confidentiality requests.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Low-wage immigrant worker suing for unpaid wages
Successfully prevents their employer from introducing immigration status as a prejudicial tactic. The court strictly applies the confidentiality mandate, keeping all related filings sealed, allowing the worker to recover full back pay without fear of deportation threats influencing the jury or public record.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Plaintiff with a legitimate claim requiring proof of visa-dependent work authorization
Denied crucial evidence because a judge narrowly interprets essential to prove an element. The plaintiff loses the case not due to lack of merit, but because the procedural and evidentiary barriers effectively block necessary documentation from entering the record.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
The amendment explicitly carves out compliance and third-party administrative actions as lawful, but does not provide state-level auditing mechanisms to verify employer intent or judicial application limits.
Sources · Amendment -6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure balances enhanced privacy and workplace stability for immigrant workers against increased procedural complexity and potential evidentiary barriers in civil litigation. Upsides include reducing immigration status as a tool for intimidation and clarifying employer compliance with federal law. Downsides involve added administrative burdens through mandatory confidential motions and in camera hearings, alongside the risk that courts may apply the essential standard too strictly, inadvertently restricting plaintiffs' ability to present necessary evidence.
Reduces immigration status as a tool for intimidation or prejudice in court; clarifies employer compliance with federal law to prevent chilling effects on lawful documentation updates.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Adds administrative burden through mandatory confidential motions and in camera hearings; may inadvertently restrict plaintiffs' ability to present necessary evidence if courts apply the essential standard too strictly.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit regarding evidentiary standards, confidentiality procedures, and employer safe harbors. Official fiscal and revenue statements confirm minimal state impact, though they lack granular judicial cost breakdowns.
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 HB 4111 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
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
delete lines 1 through 26 and insert:
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Willy Chotzen, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Hai Pham, Representative Farrah Chaichi, Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Cyrus Javadi, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Tom Andersen
Regular sponsors: House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Representative Paul Evans, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative Ken Helm, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Shannon Isadore, Representative Pam Marsh, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Nancy Nathanson, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Rob Nosse, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Jules Walters, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Anthony Broadman, Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Kayse Jama, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Representative Daniel Nguyen, Representative Mari Watanabe, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Jason Kropf, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Janeen Sollman, Senator Wlnsvey Campos
House carrier
Representative Willy Chotzen
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Anthony Broadman
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Anthony Broadman
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Mike McLane
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · 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.
Chapter 57, (2026 Laws): Effective date June 5, 2026.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Third reading. Carried by Broadman. Passed.
Ayes, 20; Nays, 9--Girod, Hayden, Linthicum, Nash, Robinson, Smith DB, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Motion to substitute Minority Report for Committee Report failed.
Ayes, 11; Nays, 18--Broadman, Campos, Frederick, Gelser Blouin, Golden, Gorsek, Jama, Lieber, Manning Jr, Meek, Neron Misslin, Patterson, Pham, Prozanski, Reynolds, Sollman, Taylor, President Wagner; Excused, 1--Drazan.
Second reading.
Minority Report to B-Engrossed bill text posted
Senate Minority Amendments to A-Engrossed bill text posted
Minority Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng Minority)
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng bill.
Staff Measure Summary · Version B · Minority
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Fiscal Impact Statement · Version MRB
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 7 · Room HR C · Provides that evidence of a party's or a witness's immigration status is not admissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
Amendment -AMR10 proposed
Amendment -A9 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4111 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 7 · Room HR C · Provides that evidence of a party's or a witness's immigration status is not admissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
Referred to Judiciary.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Rules suspended. Third reading. Carried by Chotzen. Passed.
Ayes, 34; Nays, 19--Boice, Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Diehl, Edwards, Elmer, Harbick, Helfrich, Lewis, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Skarlatos, Smith G, Wright, Yunker; Excused, 5--Hartman, Levy B, Scharf, Valderrama, Wallan; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Boshart Davis, Javadi.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 8 · Room HR B · Provides that evidence of a party's or a witness's immigration status is not admissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
IS_Impact HB 4111 6
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -6 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 5 · Room HR B · Provides that evidence of a party's or a witness's immigration status is not admissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
Referred to Judiciary.
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.