Loading policy item
SB 1594
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.
Generated explanation · Enrolled · Analyzed 8/21/2026 · Open official Enrolled text
Generated analysis of Enrolled text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Enactment and effective dates are separate. Effective dates have not been verified here; provisions may take effect at different times. Check the official text.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This measure became law. Enactment does not establish that every provision is already effective; check each effective date in the official text.
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.
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the enrolled bill text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. Inferences are explicitly labeled and bounded to statutory language. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The measure amends ORS 180.810 to require the Oregon Department of Justice to publish model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities, mandates superintendent-level approval and warrant verification for K-12 schools, and conditionally would repeal a conflicting provision in SB 1538 if that measure passes. The amended statute would take effect July 1, 2026, while the emergency clause would take effect upon passage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
The measure provides clear guidance to facilitate public trust and resolve legislative conflicts between SB 1594 and SB 1538 regarding ORS 180.810.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The text requires only a school superintendent or designee to approve responses to immigration enforcement requests, which likely aims to centralize authority at the district leadership level to prevent unauthorized disclosures by individual staff, reduce legal liability, and standardize compliance with existing Oregon sanctuary statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would have to develop, review, and update model policies; consult with OIRA and school professional organizations; may adopt implementing rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Would have to distribute model policies to employees; implement superintendent approval chains and warrant verification protocols for immigration enforcement interactions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged but not required to adopt policies based on the model guidance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Indirectly affected through standardized interaction protocols, policy distribution requirements, and potential changes in trust/access dynamics.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
School districts would have to establish internal approval workflows and distribute DOJ model policies, creating administrative obligations absorbed into existing compliance budgets.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
DOJ would have to coordinate with OIRA and education organizations, potentially extending policy development timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Fiscal impact is minimal per Legislative Revenue Office and Legislative Fiscal Office reports; no new revenue streams or significant expenditure mandates are created.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA; Fiscal Impact Statement B
School Districts & Immigrant Students
Potential effect if enacted: A district successfully prevents an unlawful immigration sweep at a school by strictly enforcing warrant verification and superintendent approval, avoiding litigation, maintaining student attendance, and preserving community trust without violating federal law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
School Districts & Law Enforcement
During a time-sensitive federal enforcement action, a delayed superintendent approval process or ambiguous warrant validity assessment would lead to a chaotic confrontation, resulting in student displacement, legal liability for the district due to conflicting state/federal directives, or operational disruption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The text does not authorize refusal to comply with lawful judicial directives; risk stems from administrative overreach or misclassification of duties.
Sources · House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Centralizing immigration enforcement response authority at the superintendent level ensures consistent legal compliance and would reduce unauthorized disclosures, but may introduce administrative delays during time-sensitive federal interactions.
Potential effect if enacted: Standardized protocols reduce confusion and liability for districts; centralized approval prevents unauthorized staff disclosures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Mandatory consultation with OIRA and education organizations aligns policy development with community expertise.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Mandatory superintendent approval may slow responses during critical incidents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged (not required) legal counsel consultation may leave districts without consistent legal guidance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to A-Engrossed
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text and official legislative revenue/fiscal/staff summaries. Inferences are bounded by statutory language and explicitly labeled. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
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, would impose 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
Would have to draft, publish, and potentially adopt rules for model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public facilities; would have to consult with OIRA and education stakeholders.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Would have to distribute applicable DOJ model policies to employees; would have to implement a mandatory superintendent or designee approval process for responding to immigration enforcement requests; would have to ensure compliance with existing sanctuary statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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) would 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: inference
Sources · Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: 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.
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: Mandatory distribution ensures staff awareness and standardized responses across educational entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Administrative burden on districts for training and distribution.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potential delays in legitimate law enforcement coordination due to mandatory approval layers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Uneven protection across non-educational public facilities due to voluntary compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -A6 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment and official legislative summaries. No enacted provisions or external litigation are assumed. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would override existing Oregon sanctuary statutes by mandating that all state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding any person convicted of an Oregon felony. The material consequence is the elimination of discretionary or prohibited assistance frameworks for this group, requiring mandatory cooperation and potentially exposing convicted felons to federal immigration enforcement through state/local channels.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority 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 measure may aim to align Oregon law with federal immigration enforcement priorities regarding convicted felons by removing statutory barriers to cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Would have to alter operational protocols to cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding convicted felons, shifting from current discretionary or prohibited assistance models.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Become subject to mandatory state/local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, regardless of prior sanctuary protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: may experience reduced trust in local law enforcement due to the loss of statutory barriers against immigration-related cooperation for convicted individuals.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Law enforcement agencies would have to establish procedures to identify felony convictions and coordinate with federal immigration authorities, replacing previous guidance that limited such cooperation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Official fiscal reviews indicate minimal to no revenue impact on state or local government expenditures for implementing this mandate.
Basis: Inferred · 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
Compliance would depend on agency interpretation of cooperation scope, potentially increasing federal apprehension rates but possibly deterring crime reporting or service access among affected populations due to enforcement fears.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Public safety jurisdictions
Potential effect if enacted: A violent felony offender who has evaded federal deportation for years is swiftly identified by local police during a routine stop, leading to immediate federal custody and removal, thereby preventing potential future harm in the community.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Long-term residents with historical convictions
Potential effect if enacted: A long-term resident with a decades-old nonviolent felony conviction faces mandatory cooperation and federal detention solely based on the statute, resulting in family separation and loss of employment despite no recent criminal activity or immigration violations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
The broad phrasing 'any action concerning any person convicted of a crime constituting a felony' would lack procedural safeguards or federal warrant requirements, leaving implementation vulnerable to overreach.
Sources · Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities for convicted felons prioritizes alignment with federal enforcement priorities over maintaining Oregon's longstanding statutory barrier against state involvement in immigration matters.
Potential effect if enacted: Potential enhancement of public safety through consistent enforcement of felony convictions and reduced jurisdictional gaps in federal apprehension efforts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Minority Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Erosion of trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, potentially reducing crime reporting, complicating community policing, and conflicting with existing sanctuary policy frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary B
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is strictly grounded in the provided bill text, fiscal notes, and staff summaries. No external legislative history or sponsor statements were available to confirm intent. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The measure would direct the Oregon Attorney General to publish model policies limiting immigration enforcement at public schools, health facilities, courthouses, shelters, and other public facilities, mandates DOJ consultation with OIRA during policy development, and encourages state/local governments and service contractors to adopt similar guidelines. It carries no new revenue impact or direct mandate.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Official staff analysis cites codifying internal practices, increasing protection for Oregonians, safeguarding access to schools and healthcare, and providing clear guidance to facilitate public trust in response to increased federal immigration enforcement.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The text’s reliance on encouragement rather than mandates for public bodies and contractors suggests a legislative strategy to standardize sanctuary protections across jurisdictions without triggering statutory conflicts or funding mandates, likely aiming to preempt inconsistent local enforcement while remaining within constitutional limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Would have to develop, review, or update model policies limiting immigration enforcement at specified facilities and consult OIRA during the process; authorized to adopt implementing rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Required participant in DOJ policy consultations; no independent drafting or funding obligation created.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged but not legally compelled to adopt the model policies; implementation remains voluntary and jurisdiction-dependent.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged to align internal policies with the model guidelines; no binding compliance standard or penalty mechanism established.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Agencies may revise internal protocols to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement at listed facilities, but access protections would vary by jurisdiction due to the voluntary adoption framework.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: No new funding is allocated for policy drafting, training, or compliance monitoring; implementation costs fall on existing agency budgets.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Enforcement of any resulting local policies would depend on municipal/county discretion, creating potential gaps in consistent facility access for immigrant and refugee populations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Undocumented residents accessing public health clinics
Potential effect if enacted: A rural county sheriff’s department voluntarily adopts the model policy, successfully preventing federal immigration agents from accessing a public health clinic during a routine visit, thereby maintaining community trust and ensuring vulnerable patients seek necessary medical care without fear of detention.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Contracted mental health providers at courthouses
Potential effect if enacted: A contracted provider ignores the encouragement, continues sharing patient location data with federal authorities at a courthouse facility, and faces no legal penalty under state law, leaving vulnerable clients exposed to immigration enforcement despite the statute’s intent.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on the absence of mandatory language, audit requirements, or penalty provisions in the enacted text.
Sources · Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes uniform guidance and voluntary sanctuary protections to maintain public trust and facility access, but sacrifices enforceable mandates and dedicated funding, leaving implementation inconsistent across jurisdictions.
Potential effect if enacted: Standardizes baseline expectations for immigration enforcement limits at high-traffic public facilities without imposing unfunded mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Mandates OIRA consultation, ensuring immigrant and refugee community perspectives inform policy development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Voluntary adoption framework would allow jurisdictions to opt out or interpret guidelines narrowly, undermining uniform protection goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Lack of funding or compliance tracking mechanisms may result in uneven implementation and reduced accountability.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRA
Model self-rating: high. Analysis relies exclusively on the provided Senate Amendment text, official fiscal/revenue notices, and staff measure summaries. No external legislative history or unverified claims are used. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
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 would update 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
Would have to share information or detain individuals at federal request for felony cases, losing prior discretion under sanctuary rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Face heightened risk of federal immigration enforcement contact during state or local custody or investigations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: may experience reduced willingness to report crimes or access public services due to mandatory cooperation mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Would have to 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 would have to comply with federal immigration requests for felony cases, overriding prior sanctuary guidance. Agencies would need to update training, custody protocols, and data-sharing procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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 would legally permit 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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.
Potential effect if enacted: Clearer enforcement alignment with federal priorities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potential deterrence of serious crimes by noncitizens through predictable enforcement consequences.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Erosion of sanctuary principles and established non-cooperation policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: Increased litigation risk over jurisdictional conflicts and due process protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potential chilling effect on crime reporting and community cooperation with law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Model self-rating: high. 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. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
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
Would have to 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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 effect if enacted: 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 would 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 would 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: bill_text
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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.
Potential effect if enacted: Predictable intergovernmental coordination
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Streamlined federal prosecution
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Reduced local flexibility and discretion
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Chilling effects on public safety reporting
Basis: Bill text · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: Loss of sanctuary protections for felony convictions
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. No enacted status or external speculation is applied. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
Potential effect if enacted: 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; would have to formally consult OIRA during development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Loses primary drafting role but retains a statutory consultation requirement during policy development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged to adopt model policies but faces no legal obligation or penalty for non-adoption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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 would have to allocate administrative resources to draft policies and potentially initiate rulemaking; OIRA would have to participate in consultations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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 would create jurisdictional variation in service access and protection standards for undocumented residents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Public bodies and service contractors
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: inference
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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.
Potential effect if enacted: Stronger statutory alignment with existing sanctuary law enforcement frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Clearer, legally standardized enforcement guidance for state agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential effect if enacted: Voluntary compliance limits statewide impact and leaves protection standards to local discretion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potential interagency friction over policy control and resource allocation between DOJ and OIRA.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. 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. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
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
Would have to develop, publish, and potentially adopt rules for model policies; would have to consult OIRA during development, review, or would update.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Required to participate in policy development, review, or would update as a consultative partner.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: Encouraged to adopt similar limiting policies; no binding compliance requirement imposed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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 would absorb policy development and training costs within existing budgets without new appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Staff Measure Summary A
Would clarify 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Would provide 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.
Potential effect if enacted: Standardizes protective guidance across jurisdictions through centralized drafting and specialized consultation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Would reduce fear of enforcement at sensitive locations, potentially improving public health outcomes and school attendance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Voluntary adoption would create uneven protection depending on local political would and resource allocation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: 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
Model self-rating: high. 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. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
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
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite deletes the new OIRA policy-making program and substitutes a DOJ consultation duty; the aim of model policies limiting immigration enforcement remains.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: uncertain.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite deletes the new OIRA policy-making program and substitutes a DOJ consultation duty; the aim of model policies limiting immigration enforcement remains.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section: 5 (a) “Federal immigration authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 180.805. 6 (b) “Information concerning a person’s citizenship or immigration status” has the 7 meaning given that term in ORS 180.805. 8 (c) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.1”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 180.810 is amended to read: 5 180.810. (1) The Attorney General shall publish model policies intended to limit, to the fullest 6 extent possible consistent with state and federal law, immigration enforcement at public schools, 7 public health facilities, courthouses, public shelters and other public f”
A-Engrossed
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted -2 amendment deletes OIRA's independent model-policy mandate and substitutes an interagency consultation duty, replacing the operative institutional scheme.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. (1) As used in this section: 5 (a) “Federal immigration authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 180.805. 6 (b) “Information concerning a person’s citizenship or immigration status” has the 7 meaning given that term in ORS 180.805. 8 (c) “Public body” has the meanin”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 180.810 is amended to read: 5 180.810. (1) The Attorney General shall publish model policies intended to limit, to the fullest 6 extent possible consistent with state and federal law, immigration enforcement at public schools, 7 public health facilities, courthouses, public shelter”
A-Engrossed
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
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.
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
Source title: 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.This source title may describe an earlier version. Read the current brief and version history above.
“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.