Latest news with #SenateBill8
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Immigration Enforcement Bill Sent To Abbott After House And Senate Reach Agreement
(Texas Scorecard) – A high-profile immigration enforcement measure is now headed to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk after both chambers approved a compromise hammered out in conference committee over the last week. Senate Bill 8, a top priority of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Republican Party of Texas, requires all Texas sheriffs who operate or contract to operate a jail to pursue formal cooperation agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Section 287(g) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. State Rep. David Spiller (R–Jacksboro), who led negotiations for the House, called the legislation 'heavily negotiated.' When the Senate first passed SB 8 in April, it applied only to sheriffs in counties with populations over 100,000. But the House broadened the bill significantly, requiring universal coverage for all counties that run jails, regardless of population. That provision was maintained in the final version. 'We improved the bill with a floor substitute to provide for universal coverage of the 287(g) program to all counties that operate or contract to operate a jail,' Spiller told House members Monday. 'SB 8, in its original form, only had counties with a population of 100,000 or more. This version has expanded that to all counties.' Under the final language, counties may enter into any of the three ICE partnership models allowed under federal law—the task force model, jail enforcement model, or the warrant service model that had been emphasized in the House version. The conference committee also made a major funding shift. While the House had created both a grant and reimbursement program to support implementation, the final bill eliminates the reimbursement system and substantially increases grant funding instead. 'The monies that were there for the entirety are now basically front-end loaded,' said Spiller. 'We addressed concerns that counties needed funds to be able to implement and operate. We've done that.' The grant program awards counties between $80,000 and $140,000, depending on population, to help cover the cost of implementing an agreement with ICE. These funds can be used for officer compensation, reporting requirements, equipment, training, and detention-related expenses not reimbursed by the federal government. 'What we now have, in my view, is a very strong bill that achieves the public safety purposes of the bill,' Spiller said. 'It provides universal coverage and cooperation, provides necessary funding to the counties, guarantees coordination with the executive orders and President Trump, and provides assistance and cooperation with our federal partners to assist in enforcing existing immigration law.' The legislation now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it into law.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas House set to vote on bail restrictions for people illegally in the country accused of violent crimes
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Senate Joint Resolution 1 — a proposed constitutional amendment to prevent bail for those not lawfully in the country accused of certain crimes — faces a crucial vote in the House on Wednesday, hours before a midnight deadline. Known as 'Jocelyn's Law', after 12-year-old Houston girl Jocelyn Nungaray was allegedly killed by a pair of men illegally in the country last year, SJR 1 is a priority of Gov. Greg Abbott. 'Illegal immigrants who are arrested should be considered a flight risk, denied bail and turned over to [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)],' Abbott said during his state of the state address in early February. While the Texas legislature has passed tangential laws designed to uphold Abbott's vision — such as Senate Bill 8 which requires local law enforcement agencies to partner with ICE on their 287(g) detention program — SJR 1 kept getting stalled in the Texas House. The proposed amendment took nearly three months to reach a House floor vote on May 19, passing to a third reading with an 88-50 vote. However, that's not enough for constitutional amendments which require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the legislature and a majority vote from the public. After failing to get the required 100 votes, SJR 1 was postponed. And postponed again. In total, it's been postponed seven times before Wednesday. It passed the Senate 28-2 all the way back on Feb. 19, but Senate Democrats had reservations about the bill. The senators worried about how broad the language is concerning the definition of 'illegal alien.' As it is written, Jocelyn's Law defines an illegal alien as anyone who entered the United States without inspection, or anyone who entered the country as a nonimmigrant and failed to maintain that status before they are accused of a crime. A nonimmigrant can be any foreign person allowed to enter the country for a certain amount of time and for a certain purpose, such as a student visa. The senators argue the language should be refined to 'ensure that those who may have initially entered the country without authorization but have since gone through the appropriate legal processes to gain lawful status are not impacted by this legislation.' SJR 1 is modeled off of the United States Congress' Laken Riley Act. It requires judges to deny bail for those defined as 'illegal aliens' if they're accused of committing one of these crimes: First-degree felony criminal solicitation Murder Capital murder Aggravated kidnapping Trafficking of persons Continuous trafficking of persons Indecency with a child Sexual assualt Aggravated sexual assault Felony injury to a child Aggravated robbery First-degree felony burglary with intent to: Continuous sexual abuse of a young child or disabled individual Indecency with a child Sexual assualt Aggravated sexual assault Prohibited sexual conduct Aggravated promotion of prostitution Compelling prostitution Possession or promotion of child pornography A felony where: A deadly weapon was used or brandished The accused was a party to the felony where a deadly weapon was used or brandished A felony under the election code An offense involving the manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance with intent to delivery An offense involving the manufacturing, delivery or possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone, if the accused had already been convicted of committing a similar crime A judge or magistrate must deny bail if they determine there is probable cause the person engaged in the accused crime at a hearing. Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch is an immigration attorney and has been following SJR 1. She is concerned that local criminal courts will have to make decisions on someone's immigration status, a job she feels is better adjudicated in a federal court. 'Those are two independent systems and they should be independent because immigration is complicated and it's federal law,' Lincoln-Goldfinch said. 'I've represented people who've been accused of being terrorists just because they have tattoos. I've seen firsthand the way detention can be politicized. I, personally, do not trust the fact that that would not happen at the state level.' The House and Senate must pass all bills on third reading by midnight on Wednesday. Any bills not passed are considered 'dead.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill requiring Texas sheriffs to work with ICE gets initial approval in House
The Brief A bill requiring Texas sheriffs to partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for federal immigration warrants in local jails gained initial House approval. The amended bill mandates that all Texas sheriffs enter into these "287(g) agreements" with ICE, rather than only those in counties with over 100,000 residents. The legislation still needs a third House vote and Senate approval of the changes before it can be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott. AUSTIN, Texas - A bill that would require Texas sheriffs to work in collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by serving federal immigration warrants at local jails gained initial approval from the House on Saturday. Senate Bill 8 passed the lower chamber 89-50 Saturday after it was amended to require all sheriffs in the state to enter agreements with ICE instead of just counties with populations over 100,000 as the bill was originally written. The bill would require sheriffs to request partnerships with ICE, known as 287(g) agreements. The agreements allow ICE to authorize local authorities to perform certain types of immigration enforcement in local jails, including allowing officers to question inmates about their immigration status and serve administrative warrants. A second model of 287(g) agreement allows officers to question people about their immigration status during "routine police duties" like DUI checkpoints. The other side Advocacy groups say the agreements lead to local profiling, targeting of people with little or no criminal history and harming the relationship between law enforcement and the community. By the numbers Data from ICE shows dozens of Texas law enforcement agencies are already in agreements with ICE and at least four other agencies in the state have pending applications. Under the amended version of the bill, sheriffs would need to enter, at least the "warrant service" agreement. They can choose to enter other agreements to fill the requirement. The bill authorizes grants for agencies to offset the cost of participating in the program. The bill would allow the attorney general's office to sue sheriffs who do not comply. What's next The bill requires a third vote in the House before it can go back to the Senate, where they must approve the changes before it can be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk. The Source Information on Senate Bill 8 comes from the Texas Legislature. Information on 287(g) agreements comes from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Information on the agencies currently with ICE agreements comes from data provided by ICE.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas House overwhelmingly passes bill to clarify medical exception to state abortion ban
After months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and years of criticism over unclear medical exceptions, the Texas House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill clarifying the state's near-total abortion bans. Senate Bill 31 standardizes the medical exception in the state's three separate abortion bans, including one from 1857, and requires doctors to receive training on what is permissible under the law. It also clarifies that doctors may treat a life-threatening condition before a patient faces imminent death or harm, codifying the Texas Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in a lawsuit brought by 20 Texas women and two OB-GYNs. The proposal does not expand or change which Texans qualify for a legal abortion. Current law bans the procedure from fertilization, with no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal anomalies. Addressing his colleagues, Republican state Rep. Charlie Geren said SB 31 will ensure doctors know when they can intervene in near-death situations. "We know women have died after care was delayed or denied,' said Geren, who authored SB 31's House companion. "We know women have left Texas for lifesaving care. We know women have been horribly injured because doctors have refused to provide abortions that could save their bodies. Doctors and hospitals need the clarity that SB 31 can provide." Since September 2021, when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 8, at least three women have died after doctors denied abortion care during medical crises and the rate of sepsis nearly doubled among pregnant Texans, according to ProPublica. Around three abortions per month have taken place under the life-of-the-mother exception, or 135 in total, according to data from the state Health and Human Services Commission. Doctors also testified in regulatory hearings that they were afraid they would face lawsuits or criminal prosecution for intervening to save a woman's life. The preliminary 129-6 House vote moves SB 31 one crucial step forward to reaching the governor's desk after it passed unanimously in the state Senate. Ten House members abstained. The bill will go to a final vote Thursday and would take effect immediately once signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. Several of the chamber's hardline Republicans questioned Geren about whether the bill would allow doctors to terminate pregnancies unnecessarily, with Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park, asking whether more babies would die as a result of the bill. Rep. Tom Oliverson, an anesthesiologist and conservative Republican from Cypress, responded to those concerns by saying that when a previable pregnancy threatens a mother's life, the baby will die regardless. "The question is whether the mother survives the pregnancy," Oliverson said on the House floor. "We're not talking about circumstances where the baby could be delivered and could survive." SB 31's initial language drew significant pushback from abortion rights activists, who said it could bolster the state's argument that an abortion ban originating in 1857 is enforceable. In response, the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, changed the proposal to clarify it neither rejects nor affirms the enforceability of the pre-Roe law. The bill now also states that pregnant Texans cannot be prosecuted for receiving an abortion. SB 31 will tweak Hughes' Senate Bill 8, the 2021 law that authorizes private citizens to sue people who terminate a pregnancy after around six weeks. It also changes some language in House Bill 1280, a 2021 law that set out criminal penalties of up to 99 years in prison, loss of a medical license and significant fines for physicians found to have illegally terminated a pregnancy. According to Geren, SB 31 will address a mismatch between the intent and the effect of those abortion bans. "This bill clarifies the legislative intent that everyone thought we had when we passed the law several years ago," he said. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Bill to 'clarify' Texas abortion ban set to reach Gov. Greg Abbott
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas' latest anti-abortion bill should alarm anyone who cares about rule of law
You know how some showrunners try to amp up the sex and gore in streaming series when they're worried about fading viewer interest and don't have better ideas? The Texas Legislature is following this playbook when it comes to abortion. After lawmakers in 2021 passed Senate Bill 8, the "Texas Heartbeat Act" that banned abortion once fetal cardiac activity was present, Texas abortions officially fell to negligible numbers. But Texas women continued getting abortions at nearly the same rate as when the procedure was legal. Abortion pills are easy to obtain and take, even in states where they are illegal. The pills are almost always effective, and have fewer serious side effects than drugs such as Viagra and penicillin. With the Senate's recent passage of SB 2880, the 'Women and Child Protection Act,' the desperation of Texas legislators is palpable. The Protection Act would make abortion pill manufacturers, distributors, prescribers and transporters strictly liable for the death or injury of a pregnant person or fetus. Nearly any private person could bring a civil suit up to six years after the alleged abortion, seeking damages of up to $100,000. Additionally, the bill authorizes the Texas attorney general to bring a civil action on behalf of fetuses to enforce the state's criminal abortion laws. The bill would make not only defendants but also their attorneys liable to pay the attorney's fees and costs of prevailing plaintiffs. The corker is that the bill purports to prevent courts from finding the bill unconstitutional, whether in part or in whole. In fact, should any court dare to find any portion of the bill unconstitutional, the bill declares such a finding to be void — and SB 2880 says that any person may sue the judge or anyone following the judge's ruling and obtain at least $100,000 in punitive damages from them, among other damages and relief. Clearly, the Texas Legislature thinks that those prescribing and supplying abortion pills to Texas women are scofflaws who need to be disciplined. But the Legislature is woefully impotent on this issue. The Texas Heartbeat Act already permits private people to bring these sorts of 'bounty suits' against many of the defendants that SB 2880 contemplates. If the Heartbeat Act isn't working, why should SB 2880 yield greater success? Damages under the Heartbeat Act start at $10,000 rather than the $100,000 offered under SB 2880, but given that both also cover prevailing plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs, it's hard to see how the increased bounty would spur the thousands of private suits needed to help deter illicit abortions. The Legislature should realize that the bounty hunter tactic isn't working. The tactic is unconstitutional. To sue for civil damages, a person must have suffered a redressable injury. Without an actual injury, a person doesn't have the right to bring a civil lawsuit seeking damages against another party. Imagine if anyone — your neighbor, a business competitor, some person on the other side of the country — could haul you into court and sue you for thousands of dollars if they learned that you did something that the Legislature decided wasn't allowed, like jaywalking or wearing a red shirt. This is what the Heartbeat Act and SB 2880 do. They throw the bedrock constitutional principle of due process under the bus. What's more, in an outrageous attempt to circumvent the courts, SB 2880 would heavily penalize any judge who dared to find the statute unconstitutional. Most of published decisions to date involving the Heartbeat Act, including decisions at the U.S. and Texas Supreme Courts, have concerned matters other than the bounty hunter provision. But one Texas district court has addressed the substantive issue. It held that the Heartbeat Act's enforcement mechanism is unconstitutional. Any other holding would be absurd. It would throw state courts open to anyone, potentially, to sue another party for any reason or no reason at all. The Texas Legislature is trying to tear down the rule of law. Regardless of our views on abortion, we should all oppose this. Laura Hermer is a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minn. She previously served on the faculty at the University of Texas Medical Branch and the University of Houston Law Center. She teaches and writes on health law and reproductive rights. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas' anti-abortion bill is an attack on the rule of law | Opinion
