SB 1594
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The enrolled bill amends ORS 180.810 to require the Oregon Department of Justice to publish model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities, mandating consultation with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement. It adds specific K-12 school safeguards for verifying warrants and requiring superintendent approval before responding to immigration enforcement requests, contingent on Senate Bill 1538 becoming law. The measure carries no revenue impact, takes effect immediately upon passage, but its substantive provisions become operative on July 1, 2026.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Enrolled; Staff Measure Summary B; Fiscal Impact Statement B
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 mandates DOJ consultation with OIRA and establishes mandatory warrant verification and superintendent approval workflows for K-12 schools, indicating a legislative aim to standardize how public entities handle federal immigration inquiries while reducing arbitrary compliance risks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Enrolled; Staff Measure Summary A
Must draft, review, and update model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities and formally consult with OIRA during the process.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Must participate in DOJ policy consultations regarding immigration enforcement at public facilities.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Must implement superintendent review processes for immigration enforcement responses, verify warrant validity, consult legal counsel, and distribute model policies to employees (if SB 1538 passes).
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Encouraged to adopt the model policies but not legally mandated to do so under this version.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
Agencies will need to allocate staff time to draft, review, and update model policies by the July 1, 2026 operative date.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
School districts must establish internal approval chains and legal consultation protocols before responding to immigration enforcement requests.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Enrolled
The measure relies on voluntary adoption by non-school public bodies and contractors, creating a decentralized implementation framework with minimal direct fiscal burden.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Enrolled; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Public school districts and immigrant families
A school district successfully blocks an invalid federal immigration warrant through the mandated superintendent review process, preventing unlawful student data disclosure and maintaining community trust in schools.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Public health facilities or emergency responders
A public health facility faces a complex emergency where delayed response due to mandatory consultation requirements impedes immediate care or conflicts with urgent federal court orders.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The statutory language encourages adoption and sets procedural guardrails but does not explicitly preempt conflicting federal mandates or define penalties for noncompliance with valid federal orders.
Sources · Enrolled
Standardizing responses to federal immigration enforcement enhances legal clarity and protects public facility access but may delay or complicate lawful cooperation with federal authorities during urgent situations.
Potential operational friction with federal agencies if model policies are interpreted as blanket non-cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Administrative burden on school districts to implement approval workflows and distribute policies by the operative date.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version incorporates the House conflict amendments exactly as drafted in the prior House Amendments to A-Engrossed version. No substantive changes were made to the operative language, consultation mandates, or K-12 school provisions. The enrolled text simply formalizes the legislative agreement and includes standard enrollment formatting and signatures.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: None. The structural and policy framework remains identical to the previous version.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the enrolled bill text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. Inferences are explicitly labeled and bounded to statutory language.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
If adopted, the amendment would repeal a conflicting provision from Senate Bill 1538, direct the Oregon Attorney General to draft and publish model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public schools, health facilities, courthouses, and shelters, mandate superintendent approval for school responses to federal immigration requests, require K-12 districts to distribute these policies to staff, and set an operative date of July 1, 2026. This shifts policy development authority from the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement to the Attorney General, imposes mandatory administrative gatekeeping on educational institutions, and maintains Oregon’s existing sanctuary framework as a state-law change rather than incorporating federal definitions as binding law.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B; 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 likely aims to resolve legislative overlap by consolidating immigration enforcement policy authority within the Attorney General’s office while adding explicit procedural safeguards for K-12 schools.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Must draft, publish, and potentially adopt rules for model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities; must consult with OIRA and education stakeholders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must distribute applicable DOJ model policies to employees; must implement a mandatory superintendent or designee approval process for responding to immigration enforcement requests; must ensure compliance with existing sanctuary statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Encouraged but not mandated to adopt policies based on the Attorney General’s model, creating a voluntary compliance standard.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Indirectly affected through clarified institutional protocols that may limit immigration enforcement interactions at public service locations and establish verification procedures for federal requests.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
School superintendents or designees gain mandatory gatekeeping authority over responses to federal immigration requests, creating a formal verification and approval layer that may delay or filter such requests. The Attorney General assumes new rulemaking and policy-drafting duties with statutory consultation requirements. While official fiscal statements indicate minimal government expenditure impact, actual implementation costs (training, legal review, distribution) will fall on school districts and the DOJ. Enforcement is mandatory for educational entities but voluntary for other public facilities, leading to uneven protection standards across the public sector.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement B
School Districts and Immigrant Families
A school district successfully uses the mandatory superintendent review process to lawfully deny an invalid immigration detainer, preventing the unlawful detention of a student's parent and avoiding costly litigation under existing Oregon sanctuary statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Public Health Facilities and Shelters
A public health facility or shelter ignores the voluntary status of the model policies, leading to uncoordinated responses to federal agents that inadvertently compromise client confidentiality or trigger jurisdictional conflicts with existing state sanctuary laws.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
inference
Sources · Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Mandating superintendent approval and mandatory policy distribution for schools enhances procedural safeguards and legal compliance but centralizes policy authority in the Attorney General while leaving other public facilities without enforceable standards.
Clearer institutional protocols, reduced ad-hoc responses, and explicit alignment with existing sanctuary laws.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Mandatory distribution ensures staff awareness and standardized responses across educational entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Administrative burden on districts for training and distribution.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Potential delays in legitimate law enforcement coordination due to mandatory approval layers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Uneven protection across non-educational public facilities due to voluntary compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment and official legislative summaries. No enacted provisions or external litigation are assumed.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
If adopted, the amendment would override Oregon’s existing sanctuary statutes and require all state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding any person convicted of an Oregon felony. This would eliminate current discretionary non-cooperation policies, increase federal immigration enforcement contact for convicted felons, and trigger mandatory updates to state model guidance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
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’s explicit override language and focus on felony convictions suggest an intent to align Oregon law enforcement with federal immigration priorities for serious crimes, potentially responding to political pressure or perceived public safety gaps regarding noncitizen offenders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must share information or detain individuals at federal request for felony cases, losing prior discretion under sanctuary rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Face heightened risk of federal immigration enforcement contact during state or local custody or investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
May experience reduced willingness to report crimes or access public services due to mandatory cooperation mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Must revise model policies to reflect the new mandatory cooperation requirement, creating operational and legal alignment tasks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Law enforcement agencies must comply with federal immigration requests for felony cases, overriding prior sanctuary guidance. Agencies will need to update training, custody protocols, and data-sharing procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Official revenue impact statements report no direct fiscal impact; however, operational costs may arise from compliance monitoring, legal challenges, and interagency coordination.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact SB 1594 2; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Increased immigration enforcement exposure for convicted felons; potential chilling effect on community trust and crime reporting among immigrant populations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Public safety stakeholders
A violent felon evading federal deportation is apprehended by local police who, under the new mandate, promptly transfer custody to federal authorities, resulting in removal and enhanced public safety.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Noncitizen populations and local jurisdictions
A noncitizen convicted of a low-level felony is held solely on an immigration detainer without independent probable cause for state charges, leading to prolonged detention, family disruption, and diversion of local law enforcement resources from core policing duties.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits mandatory cooperation only for individuals convicted of Oregon felonies. Weak enforcement or misclassification could lead to unlawful detentions based on immigration status rather than conviction, or duty creep where agencies use the mandate to justify broader immigration enforcement beyond felony cases.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Mandating law enforcement cooperation for felons may enhance public safety and federal alignment but risks undermining community trust, diverting local resources, and conflicting with established sanctuary protections.
Clearer enforcement alignment with federal priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential deterrence of serious crimes by noncitizens through predictable enforcement consequences.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Erosion of sanctuary principles and established non-cooperation policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Increased litigation risk over jurisdictional conflicts and due process protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential chilling effect on crime reporting and community cooperation with law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory override language, official fiscal/revenue statements, and committee staff summaries. Inferences are bounded to the text's operative terms and documented legislative background.
The amendment would override Oregon’s existing sanctuary laws by legally mandating that all state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding any individual convicted of an Oregon felony, eliminating prior agency discretion and policy limits on such cooperation.
Basis: Bill text · 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 standardize state-level alignment with federal immigration enforcement priorities for serious crimes by overriding local sanctuary policies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Must establish protocols to cooperate with federal immigration authorities for all felony convictions, removing prior discretion to decline or limit cooperation.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Face automatic potential involvement of federal immigration authorities in their cases, regardless of current sanctuary protections or individual circumstances.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Potential loss of existing sanctuary frameworks may reduce trust in law enforcement and affect access to public services, schools, and health care.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Law enforcement agencies will need to revise internal policies, train personnel on mandatory cooperation protocols, and coordinate data sharing with federal authorities. While official fiscal analyses indicate minimal direct government expenditure impacts, operational costs for training, interagency liaison, and compliance monitoring will shift to local budgets. Eligibility for sanctuary-related protections is eliminated for felony convictions, potentially chilling crime reporting and community engagement among non-citizen populations. Enforcement relies on agency compliance and the scope of federal requests under ORS 180.805.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement B
Federal prosecution authorities
A high-priority, out-of-state felony fugitive is swiftly apprehended and transferred to federal immigration authorities without jurisdictional delays or local policy barriers, enabling rapid federal prosecution.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Lawful permanent residents with historical convictions
A lawful permanent resident with a decades-old, non-violent felony conviction faces immediate immigration enforcement action without individualized review, resulting in family separation and community disruption despite no current public safety threat.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
bill_text
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Mandating uniform cooperation with federal immigration authorities for all felony convictions prioritizes consistent enforcement and alignment with federal priorities at the cost of local discretion, community trust, and individualized case review. Upsides include predictable intergovernmental coordination and streamlined federal prosecution; downsides include reduced flexibility, potential chilling effects on public safety reporting, and loss of sanctuary protections.
Predictable intergovernmental coordination
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Streamlined federal prosecution
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Reduced local flexibility and discretion
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Chilling effects on public safety reporting
Basis: Bill text · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Loss of sanctuary protections for felony convictions
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. No enacted status or external speculation is applied.
If adopted, this amendment transfers the primary duty to draft model immigration enforcement policies from the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement to the Oregon Department of Justice, mandates DOJ consultation with OIRA during development, and grants the Attorney General explicit rulemaking authority. It preserves a voluntary framework encouraging public entities and service contractors to adopt these policies, with no mandated funding, compliance deadlines, or penalties for non-adoption.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — 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.
Centralizing policy development within the Attorney General’s office may aim to align model policies more closely with existing sanctuary law enforcement frameworks and leverage DOJ’s statutory rulemaking authority, while retaining OIRA consultation ensures immigrant community perspectives remain integrated.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Assumes primary responsibility for drafting, reviewing, and updating model policies; gains explicit rulemaking authority; must formally consult OIRA during development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Loses primary drafting role but retains a statutory consultation requirement during policy development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Remains subject to voluntary adoption of DOJ-developed policies; faces no new compliance mandates, funding, or enforcement mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Encouraged to adopt model policies but faces no legal obligation or penalty for non-adoption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Agencies may adjust internal protocols regarding federal immigration authority interactions based on DOJ guidance, though adoption remains discretionary.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
DOJ must allocate administrative resources to draft policies and potentially initiate rulemaking; OIRA must participate in consultations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office report no revenue impact or minimal fiscal impact across affected agencies.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: IS_Impact SB 1594 2; Revenue Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; IS_Impact SB 1594 A6; Fiscal Impact Statement B; Revenue Impact Statement B
Voluntary adoption creates jurisdictional variation in service access and protection standards for undocumented residents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Public bodies and service contractors
DOJ issues comprehensive, legally defensible model policies that successfully deter federal immigration enforcement at all participating facilities, maximizing service access for undocumented residents and eliminating jurisdictional confusion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Public bodies and service contractors
Prolonged DOJ rulemaking delays or overly restrictive policy language cause widespread non-adoption by local entities, creating legal uncertainty that chills service utilization and leaves vulnerable populations exposed to inconsistent enforcement practices.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Centralizing policy development in the Attorney General’s office improves legal consistency and rulemaking capacity but shifts primary drafting responsibility away from OIRA without guaranteeing uniform local adoption.
Stronger statutory alignment with existing sanctuary law enforcement frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Clearer, legally standardized enforcement guidance for state agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Voluntary compliance limits statewide impact and leaves protection standards to local discretion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential interagency friction over policy control and resource allocation between DOJ and OIRA.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit amendment text, official fiscal/revenue statements, and staff measure summaries. Voluntary framework and agency shifts are directly stated; implementation capacity and rulemaking timelines remain unverified.
The amendment shifts responsibility for drafting model policies limiting federal immigration enforcement from the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement to the Attorney General, explicitly enumerates protected locations (schools, health facilities, courthouses, shelters), mandates consultation with OIRA during policy development, and retains voluntary adoption language for public bodies and contractors. If adopted, it would establish a centralized, consultative framework for limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities without creating binding mandates or new funding streams.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — 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 explicitly enumerates high-traffic public facilities and requires consultation with OIRA, suggesting an intent to centralize policy drafting within the Attorney General’s office while ensuring specialized immigrant advocacy expertise informs enforcement limitations. This structure likely aims to standardize responses across jurisdictions and reduce ad hoc legal conflicts at sensitive locations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must develop, publish, and potentially adopt rules for model policies; must consult OIRA during development, review, or updates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Required to participate in policy development, review, or updates as a consultative partner.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Encouraged but not required to implement policies based on the model; retains discretion over adoption and enforcement protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Encouraged to adopt similar limiting policies; no binding compliance requirement imposed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potentially gain clearer operational protections and reduced fear of enforcement at essential service locations, though access remains dependent on voluntary local adoption.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Public bodies may revise access protocols, data handling, and staff training to align with the model policies, though compliance remains voluntary.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Minimal fiscal impact reported; agencies will absorb policy development and training costs within existing budgets without new appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Clarifies operational boundaries for federal immigration agents at listed facilities, potentially reducing on-site enforcement encounters and improving community trust in public institutions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Public school district
A school district successfully uses the model policy to legally deny entry to federal immigration agents lacking a judicial warrant, preventing student trauma and maintaining full attendance during a regional enforcement surge.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Rural public health clinic
A rural public health clinic, relying on voluntary guidance, misinterprets contractor clauses and inadvertently shares patient immigration status data with federal authorities due to ambiguous definitions of other public facilities, resulting in deportations despite the policy's protective intent.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The voluntary language and broad definition of other public facilities create enforcement gaps that could be exploited through administrative inaction or jurisdictional ambiguity.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Provides clear, consultative guidance to protect access to essential services and build community trust, but stops short of binding mandates, leaving implementation inconsistent and dependent on local discretion.
Standardizes protective guidance across jurisdictions through centralized drafting and specialized consultation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Reduces fear of enforcement at sensitive locations, potentially improving public health outcomes and school attendance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Voluntary adoption creates uneven protection depending on local political will and resource allocation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lack of binding enforcement mechanisms or clear definitions for other public facilities may leave gaps exploitable by federal agents or noncompliant local agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, official fiscal/revenue notices, and staff measure summaries. No enacted provisions or external speculation are included.
47 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 1594 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 4 through 22 and insert:
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number SB 1594.
Chief sponsors: Senator Kayse Jama, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Senator James Manning Jr., Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Farrah Chaichi, Representative Andrea Valderrama
Regular sponsors: Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Courtney Neron Misslin, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Senator Janeen Sollman, President Rob Wagner, Representative Willy Chotzen, Representative Paul Evans, Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Shannon Isadore, Representative Sarah McDonald, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Mari Watanabe, Representative Lamar Wise, Representative Daniel Nguyen, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Representative Susan McLain
Senate carrier
Senator Kayse Jama
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Kayse Jama
Third Reading and Final Consideration · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Mike McLane
Consideration Of Committee and Minority Reports · Version A
House carrier
Representative Ricki Ruiz
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.
No meaningful relationship to Yex Labs LLC was found in the supplied artifact.
74% confidence · deterministic fallback
47 events
Full timeline
47 entries shown.
Effective date, March 31, 2026.
Chapter 98, 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 Ruiz. 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.
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
IS_Impact SB 1594 A6
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -A6 adopted
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Jama. Passed.
Ayes, 18; Nays, 11--Anderson, Drazan, Girod, Hayden, Linthicum, McLane, Nash, Robinson, Starr, Thatcher, Weber; Excused, 1--Smith DB.
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--Smith DB.
Second reading.
Minority Report A-Engrossed bill text posted
Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Minority Recommendation: Do pass with different amendments. (Printed A-Eng. Minority)
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng).
Work Session held.
Amendment -MR5 minority report
IS_Impact SB 1594 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -2 adopted
Amendment -2 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Informational Meeting scheduled.
Referred to Judiciary.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
after “180.810;” insert “repealing section 6, 3 chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538);”. 4 After line 17, insert: 5 “SECTION 1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law,
(Enrolled Senate 3 Bill 1538);”. 4 After line 17, insert: 5 “ SECTION 1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 6 (Enrolled Senate Bill
026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538);”. 4 After line 17, insert: 5 “SECTION 1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter 6 ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill
. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 6 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538) (amending ORS 180.810), is repealed and ORS 180.810, as amended 7 by section
. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter 6 ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538) (amending ORS 7 180.810), is repealed and ORS 180.810, as amended by section
s; amending ORS 180.810; repealing section 6, chap- ter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538); and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oreg
enforcement, pursuant to ORS 180.810. The measure also resolves a conflict with Senate Bill 1538 A (2026). The measure declares an emergency, effective on its passage. ISSUES D
cilitating public trust EFFECT OF AMENDMENT: This is a conflict amendment. Both SB 1538 A and Senate Bill 1594 B modify Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 180.810. The amen
cts numbering and incorporates the content from SB 1594 B and from section 6 of SB 1538 A. BACKGROUND: In 1987, Oregon adopted a sanctuary law preventing state and loc
amending ORS 180.810; repealing section 6, chap- 3 ter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538); and declaring an emergency. 4 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Or
The Attorney General may adopt rules to implement this section. SECTION 1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 153
1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538) (amending ORS 180.810), is repealed and ORS 180.810, as amended by section 1 o
e Attorney General may adopt rules to implement this section. 19 SECTION 1a. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 20 (Enrolled Senate Bill
. If Senate Bill 1538 becomes law, section 6, chapter ___, Oregon Laws 2026 20 (Enrolled Senate Bill 1538) (amending ORS 180.810), is repealed and ORS 180.810, as amended 21 by section
“Digest: Directs DOJ to consult with OIRA. (Flesch Readability Score: 73.8). Requires the Department of Justice to consult with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement when the department develops, reviews or updates model policies intended to limit immigration enforcement at public facilities. Declares an emergency, effective on passage.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.