S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments
1 changes, most recent 15 days ago
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: Section 1. Section 53-13-106.14 is enacted to read: 53-13-106.14. Prohibition on state or local law enforcement assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement in a sensitive location or a house of worship -- Exceptions.
Paragraph 2 changes
(1)As used in this section:
(a)"Federal immigration authority" means the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Customs and Border Protection, or any other federal agency or entity that has the authority to detect, investigate, or enforce a violation of federal immigration law.
(1)As used in this section:
(a)"Federal immigration authority" means the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Customs and Border Protection, or any other federal agency or entity that has the authority to detect, investigate, or enforce a violation of federal immigration law.
You’re looking at a really important, complicated area of state policy, and it makes sense to wonder where your own senator lands on it.
Because this involves a specific, currently‑serving person and her live voting record, I need to be very precise: I wasn’t able to reliably pull up a clear, up‑to‑date record that connects Utah Senator Stephanie Pitcher directly to the exact bill text you pasted or to very similar “federal immigration authority” language in Utah statutes. Public reporting and databases don’t always index state‑level votes and statements in a way I can safely match to the snippet you gave without risking mixing her up with another bill, session, or context.
So, instead of guessing about her positions, here are a few concrete ways you can check her record yourself and then we can talk about what you find:
- Look up her official profile on the Utah Legislature website, then click on “Bills” or “Voting Record” for the current and past sessions to see every bill she sponsored or voted on, including any that mention “federal immigration authority” or “immigration.”
- Search the Utah Legislature’s bill tracker by keyword (for example, “federal immigration authority,” “immigration,” “sanctuary,” “detainer”) and then filter to see how she voted on each bill that comes up.
- Check her campaign or official website and social media; elected officials often post statements or newsletters explaining their votes on controversial topics like immigration.
- Local news outlets (Salt Lake Tribune, KSL, etc.) sometimes cover contested bills and may quote her directly about immigration or cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
```html
If you pull up one specific Utah bill number (like “SB ___ (year)”) or a short quote from her about immigration, do you want to click Continue with AI so we can look at that language together, or would you rather go to Create Document to upload a source or start writing your own response to her about this?
You’re working with a few different things at once here: the language-conventions packet, a statutory definition, and now a question about your own senator. I’ll focus on your last question about Sen. Jen Plumb and “bills like SB 36,” and give you just what’s solidly knowable from public records.
- Jen Plumb is a Democratic state senator for Utah’s 9th District and currently serves as Assistant Minority Whip, with a professional background as a pediatric emergency physician and public‑health advocate (especially around opioids and naloxone). (“Jennifer Plumb,” 2026)
- On recent immigration‑enforcement legislation, she has voted against at least one high‑profile bill that strengthened cooperation with federal immigration authorities (HB 165 in 2024), a bill praised by conservative groups for making it easier to deport people after certain convictions. (“Illegal Immigration – Utah Legislative Scorecard,” 2024)
- More broadly, Democratic Senate leaders (including Plumb as part of the minority leadership team) have publicly framed some current immigration‑and‑crime proposals as harmful or “attacking” underserved communities such as refugees and immigrants, signaling that she tends to resist punitive, enforcement‑heavy approaches. (Häger, “For the love of Utah,” 2026)
- Plumb has also sponsored or championed bills that fit a civil‑liberties / public‑health lens—like legislation to allow human composting as a more environmentally friendly end‑of‑life option, which shows her general pattern of backing individual choice and regulatory changes that she sees as humane or science‑based. (Sollitt, “Return to soil,” 2025)
If you think about SB 36’s language about “federal immigration authority” that you pasted, how would you describe (in your own words) whether Plumb’s past votes and public comments line up more with supporting or questioning that kind of bill—and do you want to keep exploring this here with Continue with AI, or go over to Create Document to start drafting or annotating something about it?
Here’s what I can see so far about SB 136 and how it connects to what your senator is doing:
- SB 136 this year is sponsored by Sen. Nate Blouin and would limit where ICE can operate in Utah (e.g., churches, hospitals, libraries, courthouses) and ban ICE agents from wearing masks in those “sensitive locations” ((Weaver, Bills concerning immigration, 2026); (Thurgood, This Utah lawmaker…, 2026).
- Advocacy groups that track immigrant family policy list SB 136 as a pro‑accountability bill they support because it would create “sensitive locations” and increase transparency in ICE enforcement ((Alvarez Valle, Immigrant family policies, 2026).
- Jen Plumb is a Democratic senator, a pediatric emergency physician, and has sponsored bills focused on public health, homelessness protections, and things like tighter limits on underage marriage—her record puts her generally on the side of vulnerable communities and civil-rights‑type protections ((Jennifer Plumb, 2026); (McKellar, Utah bill would further restrict teenage marriages, 2025); (Utah Legislature, Senate Govt. Ops Minutes, 2025).
- I wasn’t able to find a published floor vote or public statement from Sen. Plumb specifically on SB 136 yet; the bill was held/tabled in committee, so for her exact position your best bet is to call or email her office and ask how she plans to vote or what amendments she’d want ((Alvarez Valle, Immigrant family policies, 2026).
If you want to push this further, what’s one specific question you’d like to email Sen. Plumb about SB 136 or immigration enforcement—and do you want to click Continue with AI to draft that question together here, or go to Create Document to start your own note or upload a source to read and annotate?
(b)"Federal immigration employee" means an individual: (i)who is employed by a federal immigration authority; and (ii)whose duties include the investigation or enforcement of federal immigration laws.
(c)"House of worship" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-11-201.
(d)"Immigration enforcement operation" means an operation in which the primary objective is the identification or apprehension of an individual for the purpose of subjecting the individual to civil immigration detention, removal, or deportation proceedings.
(e)"Law enforcement officer" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-13-103.
(f)"Sensitive location" means the same as that term is defined in Section 63G-34-101.
(2)Except as provided in Subsection (3), a state or local law enforcement agency may not provide resources, equipment, facilities, personnel, or other assistance to a federal immigration authority or a federal immigration employee for the purpose of an immigration enforcement operation in a sensitive location or a house of worship.
(3)A state or local law enforcement agency may provide resources, equipment, facilities, personnel, or other assistance to a federal immigration authority or a federal immigration employee for the purpose of an immigration enforcement operation in a sensitive location or a house of worship if: (a)circumstances exist that pose an imminent threat of: (i)physical harm to an individual; or (ii)physical damage to the sensitive location or a house of worship; (b)the entity responsible for operating the sensitive location or house of worship requests the assistance or presence of a state or local law enforcement agency or a law enforcement officer employed by a state or local law enforcement agency; or (c)the immigration enforcement operation is conducted in accordance with a federal criminal warrant or in exigent circumstances.
Section 2. Section 53-25-106 is enacted to read: 53-25-106. Prohibition on officer use of a facial covering -- Exceptions -- Criminal penalty -- Civil claim.
(1)For purposes of this section: (a)(i)"Facial covering" means an opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, or other item that conceals or obscures the facial identity of an individual.
(ii)"Facial covering" includes a balaclava, tactical mask, gator, or ski mask.
(iii)"Facial covering" does not include: (A)a translucent face shield or clear mask that does not conceal the individual's facial identity; (B)a medical or surgical mask, gas mask, helmet, respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus, if worn to protect against exposure to a hazardous or harmful condition; (C)a mask, helmet, self-contained breathing apparatus, or other device necessary for underwater use that is worn during a water-based operation; (D)a motorcycle helmet when worn by an officer using a motorcycle or other vehicle that requires a helmet for the safe operation of the vehicle; or (E)protective eyewear, helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed or used for the purpose of hiding an individual's identity.
(b)"Officer" means an individual: (i)who is an employee of a law enforcement agency; and (ii)whose primary and principal duties consist of the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of criminal or immigration statutes or ordinances of the federal government, this state, or a political subdivision of this state.
(c)"Tactical unit" means a special group within a law enforcement agency that is specifically trained and equipped to respond to critical, high-risk situations.
(2)Except as provided in Subsection (3), an officer may not wear a facial covering that conceals or obscures the officer's facial identity in the performance of the officer's official duties.
(3)An officer may wear a facial covering described in Subsection (2) if: (a)the officer is actively performing duties associated with a tactical unit in which protective gear is required for the officer's physical safety; (b)the officer is actively participating in an undercover operation or assignment, including in a prosecution related to an undercover operation or assignment, that is authorized by the officer's supervising personnel or a court order; (c)the use of the facial covering is authorized under a written facial covering policy established by the officer's employing law enforcement agency in accordance with Section 53-25-903; or (d)the officer in good faith believes that the use of the facial covering was permitted by law or by the officer's law enforcement agency.
(4)(a)Except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), an officer's intentional violation of this section on or after July 1, 2026, is a class C misdemeanor.
(b)An officer may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section if the officer: (i)was acting in the officer's official capacity as an employee of a law enforcement agency; and (ii)the officer's employing law enforcement agency, at the time of the violation, had created and publicly posted a written facial covering policy in accordance with Section 53-25-903.
(5)An officer who is found to have committed an assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution against an individual while wearing a facial covering in a knowing violation of this section, may not assert a privilege or immunity for the officer's tortious conduct against a claim of civil liability, and is liable to the individual for the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $10,000, whichever is greater.
(6)The provisions of this section are severable, and if any subsection of this section or the application of any subsection to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a final decision of a court with jurisdiction, the remainder of this section shall be given effect without the invalid subsection or application.
Section 3. Section 53-25-903 is enacted to read: 53-25-903. Law enforcement agency policy concerning facial coverings.
(1)As used in this section, "tactical unit" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-25-106.
(2)Beginning July 1, 2026, a law enforcement agency operating in the state shall create, maintain, and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings by employees of the law enforcement agency.
(3)The policy described in Subsection (2) shall include: (a)a purpose statement affirming the law enforcement agency's commitment to: (i)transparency, accountability, and public trust; (ii)restricting the use of facial coverings to specific, clearly defined, and limited circumstances; and (iii)the principle that generalized and undifferentiated fear and apprehension about officer safety is not sufficient to justify the use of a facial covering; (b)a general prohibition on an officer's use of a facial covering when performing the officer's official duties as an officer and the following exceptions: (i)the exceptions described in Subsections 53-25-106(3)(a) and (b); and (ii)a law or policy regarding: (A)a reasonable accommodation for an officer to wear a facial covering based on the officer's disability or other medical reason; or (B)the use of a facial covering by an officer when required by occupational health or safety laws; (c)the use of the definition of "facial covering" found in Section 53-25-106; and (d)a requirement that a supervisor may not knowingly allow an employee of the law enforcement agency to violate state law or agency policy concerning the use of a facial covering.
(4)The provisions of this section are severable, and if any subsection of this section or the application of any subsection to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a final decision of a court with jurisdiction, the remainder of this section shall be given effect without the invalid subsection or application.
Section 4. Section 63G-34-101 is enacted to read: Chapter 34. Limitation on Federal Immigration Actions in Sensitive Locations 63G-34-101. Definitions.
As used in this chapter: (1)"Governmental entity" means: (a)the state; or (b)a political subdivision.
(2)"Immigration enforcement operation" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-13-106.14.
(3)"Political subdivision" means the same as that term is defined in Section 63G-7-102.
(4)"Public library" means a library established under Section 9-7-402 or 9-7-501.
(5)(a)"Sensitive location" means: (i)a public library; (ii)a health care facility operated by a governmental entity; (iii)a courthouse; or (iv)a location operated by a governmental entity that provides: (A)physical or mental health services; (B)shelter care services; or (C)legal services.
(b)"Sensitive location" does not include: (i)a correctional or detention facility operated by a governmental entity; or (ii)a holding or detention facility in a courthouse operated by a governmental entity.
(6)"State" means the same as that term is defined in Section 63G-7-102.
Section 5. Section 63G-34-102 is enacted to read: 63G-34-102. Limitations on federal immigration actions in a sensitive location.
A governmental entity operating a sensitive location shall deny access to any portion of the sensitive location that is not accessible to the general public to any individual who is seeking access to conduct an immigration enforcement operation, unless: (1)the individual presents a valid warrant issued by a federal court; (2)circumstances exist that pose an imminent threat of: (a)physical harm to an individual; or (b)physical damage to the sensitive location; or (3)exigent circumstances exist.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This bill takes effect on May 6, 2026.
General Document Comments 0
- I’m set up to be your thinking partner, so I can’t rewrite or summarize your bill for you, even in African-American conversational style, but I can help you build your own version step by step.
- One way to start is to pick 3–4 big ideas from this bill (like “no immigration raids in certain places” or “cops can’t wear masks except in special situations”) and say each idea in your own everyday talking voice.
- Then, for each big idea, you might add one short reason or example in your own words, like how it could affect people in a church, a clinic, or at a protest.
- If you want, you can choose one section (like just the part about facial coverings or just the part about “sensitive locations”) and I can walk you through turning that one chunk into a quick, informal summary in your home language style.
- You’ve got a full bill text here, and you’re asking to turn it into more “normal English,” but I’m set up to help you do that yourself rather than rewrite it for you.
- One move you could make is to go section by section and, under each one, write 1–2 short sentences in your own words about what it lets police do, what it forbids, and who is affected.
- You might also mark any words or parts that confuse you most (like “exigent circumstances,” “sensitive location,” or “class C misdemeanor”) and then draft your own quick explanation for each.
- After that, you could add a very short “big picture” note at the top or bottom that says what you think the bill is mainly trying to protect and what trade‑offs it creates.
If you pick one section (like the part about “facial coverings”) and write your own 2–3 sentence explanation of what it does, do you want to click Continue with AI so we can look at that together OR go to Create Document to start a new space where you paste this bill and build your own translation there?
- This Utah bill says local and state police usually cannot help federal immigration agents carry out civil immigration arrests in “sensitive locations” like public libraries, courthouses, government health or legal service sites, or in houses of worship, unless there is a warrant, an emergency threat, or a request from the site itself.
- It defines what counts as a “sensitive location,” a “federal immigration authority/employee,” and an “immigration enforcement operation,” so there is a clear boundary on when immigration actions may happen in those spaces.
- It also bans officers from wearing identity‑hiding masks or face coverings while on duty, with narrow exceptions such as tactical team actions, undercover work, safety/health gear, or good‑faith belief the mask use was allowed.
- Starting July 1, 2026, each law enforcement agency must publicly post a facial‑covering policy that stresses transparency, accountability, and that vague fear for officer safety alone is not enough to justify masks; intentional violations can lead to criminal charges and loss of immunity in certain civil lawsuits.
If you had to explain to a friend in just 2–3 sentences why this bill matters (for immigrants, for police, or for everyday people in Utah), what would you say—and do you want to click Continue with AI to draft that now, or head over to Create Document to start your own notes or upload a reading instead?
- The bill says Utah police and other local officers usually cannot help federal immigration agents do civil immigration arrests or operations in “sensitive locations” (like public libraries, certain health centers, courthouses, and shelters) or in houses of worship, unless there is a safety emergency, a request from the site, a criminal warrant, or other urgent circumstances.
- It defines key terms like “federal immigration authority,” “immigration enforcement operation,” “sensitive location,” “house of worship,” “law enforcement officer,” and “tactical unit,” so everyone knows exactly who and what the rules cover.
- The bill generally bans officers from wearing face-covering masks while on duty (things like balaclavas or ski masks), unless they are in a tactical or undercover operation, covered by a written department policy, or reasonably believe they are allowed, and it creates both criminal penalties and civil liability if officers break these rules and harm someone.
- Starting July 1, 2026, every law enforcement agency in Utah must create and publicly post a written policy about when facial coverings are allowed, centered on transparency, accountability, and the idea that vague fear for officer safety alone is not enough reason to hide an officer’s identity.
If you had to explain this bill in your own words to a friend in 3–4 short sentences, what would you say—and do you want to click Continue with AI to draft that now, or go to Create Document to start your own summary or upload a new source?
- Sen. Nate Blouin is a Democratic state senator from Millcreek/Salt Lake City who is also running for Utah’s new 1st Congressional District, so he’s operating as a progressive lawmaker with a statewide and federal political profile (Romero, Utah News Dispatch, 2026).
- News coverage describes this as his “ICE Out” bill, which would restrict federal immigration operations in “sensitive locations” (like churches, libraries, courthouses, and government health/shelter sites) and limit masked enforcement, matching the text you shared (KSL.com, 2026).
- Blouin says his main reasons are: stopping state resources from “amplifying” aggressive federal enforcement, preventing confrontations like a recent fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis, and addressing what he calls federal “overreach” that creates fear and undermines community trust (Romero, Utah News Dispatch, 2026; Axios, 2026).
- He also frames it as a states’‑rights and transparency issue: he argues Utah should be able to set guardrails for how federal agents act in state facilities and that government agents should not hide their identities from the public (Knox, Utah News Dispatch, 2025).
If you had to write one short sentence about how you see Blouin’s motives in this bill (for or against, or mixed), what would you say—and do you want to keep thinking with AI about your response here, or head over to Create Document to start drafting or uploading something to work on?
You’re asking a really focused, smart question here, because HB 48 (the wildland–urban interface bill, about wildfire risk and building standards) is pretty different from the immigration / facial-covering bill you pasted, even though they share a number.
Here’s what I can tell you, based on public info and what’s typical for Sen. Plumb’s record:
- HB 48 (2025 General Session) is mostly about wildfire safety: it makes local governments adopt Utah’s Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) code in high‑risk areas, with rules on vegetation management and ignition‑resistant construction to protect homes and insurance access (Utah DNR – HB 48 FAQ, 2025).
- Sen. Jen Plumb is a Salt Lake City Democrat and a physician; her main legislative work has centered on public health, environmental health, and protections for vulnerable communities (opioid harm reduction, human composting options, etc.) (Jennifer Plumb, 2026).
- In recent sessions she has sponsored/advocated for measures like legalizing “natural organic reduction” (human composting) as an environmentally friendly, lower‑cost burial option that respects families’ choices (Deseret News, 2025; Salt Lake Tribune, 2025).
- As part of Senate Democratic leadership (Minority Assistant Whip), she has aligned herself with her caucus’s general stance of “protecting underserved and underrepresented Utahns” and opposing bills they view as punitive toward marginalized groups (Utah Policy, 2024; Utah Policy, 2025).
- Because votes for the current session aren’t all summarized in one place yet, I couldn’t find a verified, specific record of how she voted on HB 48 itself or on the “Enforcement Activities Amendments” bill (SB 136) you pasted; I can say her caucus tends to favor civil‑rights and transparency‑oriented bills like SB 136, and to scrutinize bills that shift risk onto vulnerable residents, but I can’t claim a particular vote without an official roll‑call source.
If you had to write one or two sentences, in your own words, about what you want from Sen. Plumb on wildfire safety and on immigration enforcement (for example, “I want her to support X and oppose Y”), what would you say—and do you want to click Continue with AI to draft that message to her, or go to Create Document instead to start your own note or upload a source to respond to?
on the uploaded document.
0 archived comments