The burst of state-level activity — in blue and red states alike — signals a deepening legal and political conflict over the limits of federal immigration enforcement authority, with a University of Wisconsin legal scholar saying federal court battles over the new measures are “almost guaranteed.”

State legislatures across the country advanced competing proposals on immigration enforcement Thursday following the shooting death of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis, with Democratic-led states moving to restrict ICE operations and Republicans in Tennessee introducing White House-backed bills to expand enforcement cooperation.

New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills Monday that immigrant rights groups have sought for years, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy had until Tuesday, his last day in office, to sign or veto them.

Democratic states move to restrict ICE

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants the state to allow people to sue federal officers for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. A separate measure would bar immigration officers lacking judicial warrants from schools, hospitals, and houses of worship.

Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill allowing residents to sue federal officers for alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

California lawmakers proposed banning local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and making what the bill describes as “indiscriminate” ICE arrests near court appearances a violation of state law.

“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” California state Sen. Scott Wiener said at a news conference.

Bills advance in states where they have little chance

Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement. The measures are unlikely to advance in Georgia’s Republican-controlled upper chamber, led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. State Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants, said the effort remained important.

“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” Rahman said.

In New Hampshire, Democrats proposed measures to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state’s Republican majorities passed a law taking effect this month that bans sanctuary cities.

Tennessee Republicans coordinate with White House

The package Tennessee Republicans introduced Thursday would require government agencies to verify the legal status of residents before they can receive public benefits, obtain licenses for teaching, nursing, and other professions, or receive driver’s licenses. The bills would also verify the legal status of K-12 students — a requirement that appears to conflict with a U.S. Supreme Court precedent — and would criminalize illegal entry as a misdemeanor.

“We’re going to do what we can to make sure that if you’re here illegally, we will have the data, we’ll have the transparency, and we’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton said at a news conference Thursday.

Republicans said Democrats who protest immigration operations bear responsibility for impeding enforcement of immigration laws.

Federal lawsuits already in motion

The Trump administration has opposed state and local laws that limit ICE, including suing local governments with policies that restrict police interactions with federal officers.

California in September became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its officers would not comply and sued California, arguing the law threatens officer safety amid what it described as “unprecedented” harassment, doxing, and violence.

The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month over a law barring federal civil arrests near courthouses and regulating how universities and day care centers manage immigration status information, claiming the law is unconstitutional.

Minnesota and Illinois, joined by Minneapolis and Chicago, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota allege the administration violated free speech rights by punishing a state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago allege that “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.

Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”

Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said states hold broad authority to regulate within their borders, but many of the new measures raise novel constitutional questions courts have not yet resolved.

“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” Stark said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”