N※N

New Jersey Bills Aim to Sever Ties with ICE

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. new-jersey-bills-aim-to-sever-ties-with-ice.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, February 20th 2026 at 1:20 GMT by Patch
      Locales: New Jersey, UNITED STATES

Trenton, NJ -- A new series of bills introduced in the New Jersey State Legislature this week aims to significantly limit cooperation between state and local agencies and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The proposed legislation builds upon existing laws designed to protect immigrant communities, but represents a substantial escalation of restrictions, drawing both fervent support from advocacy groups and sharp criticism from some law enforcement officials and Republican lawmakers.

The package of bills, unveiled on Thursday, seeks to erect further barriers to ICE's activities within the state. While New Jersey already has laws in place - notably the 2018 legislation requiring warrants for transferring individuals to federal immigration custody - these new proposals go much further, effectively attempting to sever many potential points of contact between state resources and federal immigration enforcement.

Key Provisions of the Proposed Legislation

The core of the legislative effort revolves around three key bills:

• A4899 - Prohibiting Enforcement Agreements: This bill seeks to explicitly forbid state and local law enforcement agencies from entering into any agreements with ICE or other federal agencies specifically geared towards performing immigration enforcement duties. This means local police departments and county sheriffs would be legally barred from actively participating in ICE-led operations, such as deportation sweeps or immigration checks.
• A4898 - Data Sharing Restrictions: A4898 focuses on limiting the flow of personal information from state and local agencies to ICE. The bill would restrict the sharing of data that could be used to identify or locate individuals for immigration enforcement purposes. Advocates argue this is critical to preventing ICE from using routine interactions - like traffic stops or accessing public records - to initiate deportation proceedings.
• A4900 - Private Right of Action: Perhaps the most impactful component, this bill establishes a private right of action, allowing individuals who believe their rights under the new laws have been violated to directly sue state or local officials. This provision is designed to provide a strong legal recourse for those who feel they have been unfairly targeted or subjected to unlawful immigration enforcement.

The Rationale Behind the Push for Increased Restrictions

Assemblyman Gordon Johnson (D-Englewood), a primary sponsor of the bills, framed the legislation as a response to ongoing fears within New Jersey's immigrant communities. "For too long, New Jersey communities have lived under the shadow of fear," Johnson stated. "These bills are a critical step in ensuring that our state is a place of safety and opportunity for all, regardless of immigration status."

Supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), echo this sentiment. ACLU-NJ Director Amol Sinha described the bills as "a vital step towards creating a more just and equitable New Jersey," emphasizing the need to ensure access to justice for all residents, regardless of their immigration status. Advocates argue that unchecked ICE enforcement erodes trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, leading to underreporting of crimes and hindering public safety. They believe the bills will allow individuals to report crimes and access essential services without fear of deportation.

Concerns Raised by Law Enforcement and Republicans

The proposed legislation hasn't been met with universal acclaim. Assemblyman Harold Wikner (R-Cliffside Park) voiced concerns shared by many in law enforcement, stating that the bills could "make it more difficult for law enforcement to work with federal partners to keep our communities safe." The fear is that restricting information sharing and cooperation will hamper investigations into serious crimes, particularly those involving cross-border activity or where immigration status is a relevant factor.

Critics also point to the potential for unintended consequences. They argue that a complete severance of cooperation with ICE could create a safe haven for individuals with criminal records, potentially increasing the risk to public safety. Furthermore, some legal experts question the extent to which the state can legally restrict federal immigration enforcement, citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The debate over these bills highlights a growing tension between states seeking to protect their immigrant populations and the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration laws. New Jersey's move is part of a broader trend among progressive states to limit cooperation with ICE, but it represents one of the most ambitious attempts to do so. The coming weeks will be critical as the bills move through the legislative process, with passionate arguments expected from both sides.