Alabama Legislature passes most bills in Gov. Kay Ivey's public safety package
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey speaks at a press conference urging passage of a package of law enforcement bills on Feb. 12, 2025 at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama. Behind Ivey is Montgomery County Sheriff Derrick Cunningham. Most of the bills in the package passed the Legislature this year.(Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
In her State of the State address in February, Gov. Kay Ivey called on the Legislature to pass a large public safety package.
'To back the blue, we will provide law enforcement with enhanced legal protections that allow them to carry out their duties courageously and effectively without fear of Monday morning quarterbacking in the courts,' Ivey said.
By the end of the 2025 legislative session last week, nearly all of them had been approved.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Ivey on Thursday signed HB 202 a controversial bill sponsored by Rep. Rex Reynolds, R-Huntsville, that provides law enforcement with enhanced immunity protections.
'I was very proud to have two former law enforcement agents sponsoring this important bill in the House and the Senate,' Ivey said in a news release regarding the legislation. 'Rep. Rex Reynolds, a former police chief in Huntsville, and Sen. Lance Bell, a former deputy sheriff in St. Clair County, both did an excellent job moving the bill through the legislative process.'
Despite support from Ivey and leadership in the chambers, the bill faced significant opposition from Democrats and civil rights groups, who expressed fears the bill would allow law enforcement to act with impunity. In the final Senate debate over the measure on Wednesday, several Black Democrats discussed encounters with law enforcement, the dangers Black Americans often encounter in them and the warnings they give to their children during those encounters.
'Somebody will look at my baby, and because he's six-foot, dreads in his hair — they won't see an honor student,' said Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove. 'I can serve here now because my son helps with my father, who is a disabled vet. But there's somebody that will look at my baby and will decide he is a threat. This bill opens the door for more, not only my baby, but other babies to be at risk in the state of Alabama.'
The bill was amended through the process and only received final approval in the last hour of the 2025 regular session Wednesday evening.
Bills in the package focused on punishment and incarceration, from enhancing Aniah's Law that creates additional obstacles. Reynolds and other supporters of the immunity bill also argued the measures were needed to improve law enforcement recruitment in the state. Many big city departments, like Birmingham and Montgomery, have reported shortages of staff.
Other bills included in the package enhanced penalties for people charged with crimes that involve firearms, allow agencies to revoke parole and electronically monitor people released from incarceration, as well as make it more difficult to release juveniles after arrest.
Some bills in the package received bipartisan support, including one that criminalized converting semiautomatic pistols into fully automatic weapons.
SB 115: This bill would broaden the existing crime of 'impersonating a peace officer' to include individuals who accept employment as a peace officer while knowing they are ineligible to serve or knowing that their Alabama Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission certification has been revoked or suspended.
SB 119: This bill would expand the current 'certain persons forbidden' law to include individuals with any prior felony conviction unless they have had their gun rights restored by pardon. It expands Aniah's Law and increases the penalty for shooting into an occupied dwelling, vehicle or other designated space from a Class B felony to a Class A felony. It requires the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles to revoke parole, or a court to revoke probation, when a parolee or probationer has been convicted of unlawful firearm possession and revokes probation or parole when the parolee or probationer is found in possession of a firearm by his or her parole or probation officer.
SB 116: This bill would make it a Class C felony for a person to knowingly possess a 'Glock Switch'— a part or combination of parts designed to convert a pistol into a fully automatic machine gun.
HB 199: This bill clarifies that the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, or any other state agency, can provide electronic monitoring services to children released by a juvenile court pending disposition of their case, and repeals the 72-hour limitation on confinement of juvenile status offenders who have violated a valid court order.
Democrats fully supported the Glock switch bill, which Rep. Phillip Ensler, D-Montgomery, had brought in prior sessions.
'As we always do, we are going to stand up for what we believe in and work in a bipartisan way, but then, when there are things that we oppose, like the immunity bill, we are going to fight back on those,' Ensler said in an interview on Wednesday.
Ensler opted to view the package as separate bills instead of one large package that was a compendium of several pieces of legislation.
'Look, I would say in general though, between the Glock Switch bill, between those other restrictions on who can access firearms, and then the ankle monitors … there were some good things that came out of it,' he said.
One bill that did not pass was HB 188, sponsored by Rep. Alan Treadaway, R-Morris, to provide scholarships for law enforcement dependents to attend post-secondary education institutions. The legislation won approval from the House in February and got Senate committee approval just over a week later, but did not come to the floor for a vote.
HB 202 enhances the standard by which law enforcement may claim immunity from any wrongdoing from actions while performed on duty. Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, managed to add reporting requirements to the bill, but the core of the legislation remains largely intact.
Reynolds said in an interview Friday that the legislation 'clarifies a 30-year piece of legislation and allows for 'pause and review' within 45 days so that a Judge of jurisdiction can review and determine if they in fact have immunity under this law.'
Civil rights groups remain skeptical that the legislation will enhance public safety. Jerome Dees, policy director at the Southern Poverty Law Center likened the legislation to the federal crime legislation that former President Bill Clinton sponsored in the 1990s that was supported by Republicans and eventually passed into law.
'I think after 30 years' worth of data and multiple Democratic administrations, those policies, those tactics, are not what actually moves the needle on public safety,' Dees said. 'What does work are things like the accountability courts, occupational licensure, that crime is often driven by economic opportunity for folks. What I would have liked to have seen from the administration and the Legislature is a greater focus on creating pathways and opportunities for individuals that they may see as at risk.'
A'Niya Robinson, policy director for ACLU of Alabama, said she had questions about creating additional immunity protections for a class of individuals because of their professions.
'There is also a lot of references in the bill to an officer's 'discretionary authority,' and for us, that is very subjective, and of course it varies from officer to officer because part of it is based on their interpretation of the law, which can differ from person to person,' she said.
She added that she was encouraged that the legislation included provisions for reporting, adding that it was an important bill in the package and one that only one that the ACLU of Alabama had been tracking.
'I think part of it is that it touches on so many things that matter to us all, as well as so many topics that have been in the news for the past couple of years,' she said. 'There have been a lot of law enforcement-involved shootings in the past couple of years, not just across the country but right here in Alabama. And that hits home for a lot of folks in this state. I think there are a lot of concerns with how law enforcement interacts with Black folks but other communities in this state, for example LGBTQ+ folks, people who have disabilities, and even folks who are in the media.'
During debate over the bill on Wednesday, Democrats in both chambers said they wanted to support police officers who exercise restraint, and said they knew what happened if they did not.
'There's a reason that we are the ones speaking on this side of the aisle about this bill,' said Sen. Kirk Hatcher, D-Montgomery. 'Far too often, we are the victims of it.'
Alander Rocha contributed to this report.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prominent lawyers join press freedom fight to thwart Paramount settlement with Trump
With new legal muscle, the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation is upping pressure on Paramount Global to abandon efforts to settle President Trump's $20-billion lawsuit targeting CBS and "60 Minutes." Respected Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell this week joined the team representing the New York advocacy group, which has vowed to sue Paramount should it settle with Trump. The group owns Paramount shares. Lowell, who has represented Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is working on the case with attorney Norm Eisen, a Trump critic who helped House Democrats with strategy during Trump's first impeachment hearings in 2019. Eisen is a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as White House ethics advisor under President Obama. Late Thursday, the two attorneys sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount's chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other board members arguing that a Trump settlement would cause "catastrophic" harm to the embattled media company. 1st Amendment experts have labeled Trump's lawsuit frivolous. But Paramount leaders are desperate to end the Trump drama and some believe a truce could clear a path for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the company's $8-billion sale to David Ellison's Skydance Media. Paramount needs the FCC to authorize the transfer of the CBS station licenses to the Ellison family. The prospect of a Trump settlement has carved deep divisions within Paramount, which includes CBS News and "60 Minutes." 'Trading away the credibility of CBS's news division to curry favor with the Trump Administration is an improper and reckless act that will irreparably damage the company's brand and destroy shareholder value," Lowell said in a statement late Thursday. "The board is legally and morally obligated to protect the company, not auction off its integrity for regulatory approval," Lowell said. Read more: Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit have drawn mounting political heat The FCC review of Skydance's proposed takeover of Paramount has become a slog. Skydance and Paramount face an October deadline to finalize the sale or the deal could collapse. Paramount, in a statement, said that it is treating the FCC review and the Trump lawsuit as separate matters. "We will abide by the legal process to defend our case,' a corporate spokesman said. Paramount's lawyers entered mediation with the president's legal team in late April, but no resolution has been reached. Paramount offered $15 million to Trump to end his suit, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the president rejected the overture and asked for more. On Thursday, Redstone disclosed that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving treatment. Last month, doctors removed her thyroid but cancer cells had spread to her vocal chords. Read more: Paramount chair Shari Redstone has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer In their seven-page letter, Lowell and Eisen told Paramount's leaders that, should they approve a Trump settlement to gain traction at the FCC, they would be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders and potentially breaking federal anti-bribery statutes. "We believe [a settlement] could violate laws prohibiting bribery of public officials, thereby causing severe and last damage to Paramount and its shareholders," Lowell and Eisen wrote. "To be as clear as possible, you control what happens next," they said. The admonition follows a similar warning from three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) In a May 19 letter, the senators wrote that paying money to Trump to help win clearance for the Paramount sale could constitute a bribe. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the three senators wrote in their letter. Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights In addition, two California Democrats have proposed a state Senate hearing to examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a yet-unscheduled joint committee hearing in Sacramento. The California lawmakers, in their letter, said a Trump settlement could also violate California's Unfair Competition Law because it could disrupt the playing field for news organizations. Earlier this week, Paramount asked shareholders to increase the size of its board to seven members at the company's annual investor meeting next month. The Freedom of the Press Foundation was created in 2012 to protect and defend public interest journalism. This spring, Lowell left his former major law firm, Winston & Strawn, where he had been a partner for years. He formed his own boutique firm, Lowell & Assoc., with a focus on "public interest representation in matters that defend the integrity of the legal system and protect individuals and institutions from government overreach," according to its website. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain Lowell's firm also includes lawyer Brenna Frey, who made a high-profile exit from another prominent law firm, Skadden Arps, after it cut a deal with Trump to avoid becoming a target. That law firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services. Last month, Frey appeared on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air her decision to resign from Skadden Arps. 'I was able to tell my story on CBS's '60 Minutes' because of the independence of a courageous news division, which is what's at risk now," Frey said in a statement. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 in 10 Republicans worried Medicaid cuts would hurt their communities: poll
At least 4 in 10 Republicans are worried about the consequences of Medicaid cuts on their families and communities, according to a new survey. The KFF poll, released Friday, found a partisan divide in the level of concern. Still, about 40 percent of Republicans said they were concerned Medicaid cuts would lead to more adults and children becoming uninsured and negatively impact hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers in their communities. The findings also show how politically fraught Medicaid is and the dangers for Republicans who are seeking to cut billions of dollars from the program to pay for President Trump's domestic policy agenda. The House-passed legislation would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid, primarily by requiring childless adults up to age 64 to prove they are working, going to school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It also puts a freeze on provider taxes, a practice used by many states to get increased federal reimbursement that often goes towards paying for Medicaid. The politics of the health insurance program for low-income Americans are changing, and Republicans now risk alienating their own voters. Lower-income, working-class people who rely on Medicaid are now a major part of the GOP base, which has become more populist since the emergence of Trump. While most Medicaid beneficiaries under age 65 are either Democrats or independent, 27 percent said they are Republicans or lean Republican, including 19 percent who identify as Trump's MAGA supporters, according to KFF. Among those GOP Medicaid recipients, the poll found three-quarters are worried that sweeping changes to the program would hurt their family's ability to get and pay for care, and nearly 70 percent are concerned the cuts would lead to an increase in the uninsured and negatively impact providers. Overall, Democrats and independents said they were much more likely than Republicans to worry about potential negative consequences of Medicaid cuts. But nearly a third of Republicans and 26 percent of MAGA supporters who aren't on Medicaid said they were concerned about their or their families' own access to health care, the survey found. Medicaid is also key to keeping many rural providers from closing. In Missouri for instance, which was the most recent state to expand the health program, industry experts said about 10 rural hospitals closed in the years leading up to the expansion vote. Ever since, there haven't been any closures. Overall, about seven in ten rural residents said they were worried Medicaid cuts would lead to more adults and children becoming uninsured, or that it would negatively impact health care providers in their communities, according to the poll. Nearly half of rural Republican respondents said they were worried about providers, while 37 percent of rural Republicans said they were worried Medicaid cuts could affect their access to care. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 7.8 million people could lose Medicaid coverage and become uninsured over the next decade. The survey was conducted May 5-26 among 2,539 U.S. adults. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's not just Medicaid: GOP eyes possible Medicare cuts in megabill
About a month into his second term as president, Donald Trump told Fox News interviews they shouldn't worry about Republican plans for the nation's largest health care programs. 'Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched,' Trump said. As the GOP's domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — took shape, the president's promise related to Medicaid quickly evaporated. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Republicans' reconciliation package would cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. But as the party tries to advance the legislation in the Senate and GOP leaders scramble to make their arithmetic work, the other part of Trump's promise from February is suddenly in doubt, too. NBC News reported: Looking at new ways to pay for their sprawling bill for President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, Republicans are exploring ideas to slash 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare, several senators said Thursday. And President Donald Trump has blessed the pursuit, they said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn't come right out and endorse Medicare cuts, but when asked whether his party would look for savings in the popular health care program, the South Dakota Republican told reporters, 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions.' At this point, some readers are probably thinking that topic this sounds vaguely familiar. After all, didn't The Washington Post already report recently on the GOP megabill and possible Medicare cuts? The answer is yes, but the details matter. The Post highlighted the fact that the Republicans' legislation would add so many trillions of dollars to the national debt that it might automatically trigger 'sequestration' changes that would force massive Medicare cuts. But there are budgetary tactics that Congress could, and likely would, take to prevent that from happening, which helps to explain why the Post's reporting from mid-May didn't have a greater political impact. This week's developments are qualitatively different: We're not just talking about the possibility of Medicare cuts being triggered by automatic budget constraints; rather, Republican senators are making a deliberate choice to look for Medicare savings as a way to pay for the massive tax breaks the party is eager to deliver to the wealthy. Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas told the Post that the discussions among GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee have focused on Medicare Advantage, a program through which the federal government pays private insurers to enroll Medicare beneficiaries. The far-right Republican plan was already shaping up to be a political albatross for its proponents. Putting Medicare funding on the table probably won't help matters. This article was originally published on