Hawaii lawmakers are weighing a new package of proposals aimed at limiting how far state and local police can participate in federal immigration enforcement, as the 2026 legislative session reaches a crucial midpoint. Advocates said the state’s approach is changing as federal tactics have become more aggressive nationally, including in places they cited such as Chicago and Los Angeles. State Sen. Karl Rhoads, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tied the legislative pivot to what he said was a clearer picture of how the Trump administration was operating after lawmakers had tried a more cautious posture the year before.
Rhoads, who said “We had a year to see what this Trump administration was going to do,” said the outcome persuaded him that a more passive approach would not protect rights in Hawaii. He said, “We needed to be more aggressive if we were going to protect the rights of our citizens here in Hawaiʻi.” Advocates pushed lawmakers to consider multiple bills rather than rely on a single omnibus measure, aiming to increase the odds that at least some proposals would survive as bills were amended or lost momentum.
This week, bills advanced that reflect what critics of the administration’s approach say are key concerns about enforcement practices and civil liberties. One proposal would generally prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing masks. Another would bar police officers from stopping people to ask about their immigration status and would protect the right for the public to record police activity. A separate proposal would require state and county police agencies to advise people in custody of their rights before federal immigration agents interview them.
Tina Sablan, a community and policy advocate at The Legal Clinic in Honolulu, said lawmakers had a “still alive” measure moving through the Legislature as part of what she described as an “immigrant justice package.” Mandy Fernandes, policy director of ACLU of Hawaiʻi, said the “multiple vehicles” strategy is intentional, saying it made sense to push an “a la carte” approach so that different bills could move even if parts of the package failed. The overall push includes more than 25 bills related to immigrant rights and immigration enforcement introduced this session.
Although about half of the introduced bills have died, supporters said those still alive carry much of what advocates want: safeguards meant to prevent Hawaii from being pulled into enforcement practices beyond what state and local agencies are required or authorized to do. The proposals would address how local agencies handle interactions with federal agents, including settings where officials and advocates say federal actions could go further than the law requires. For example, lawmakers said local officials and police officers cannot stop federal agents from making arrests that are supported by judicial warrants, but several proposed bills would limit participation in enforcing civil immigration violations, which they said local authorities are not required by law to enforce.
House Bill 1870 is one example moving in that direction, according to the reporting. It would prevent local officials from cooperating with most enforcement around state-funded facilities, including schools, social service agencies and health services. The proposal also comes against the backdrop of a federal move earlier described in the reporting: the Trump administration rescinded a similar “sensitive places” policy in January 2025, a policy in place since 2011 that had limited ICE actions in locations such as schools, hospitals and churches.
Other measures that advocates said stalled earlier in the session are also still under consideration at mid-session. They include House Bill 1768, aimed at barring state or local law enforcement agencies from entering agreements with federal authorities that would allow local agencies to join in immigration enforcement. House Bill 1886, which advanced out of the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee on Wednesday, would restrict ways local police departments can work with federal law enforcement agencies, including by prohibiting task force participation that could lead to “civil immigration detention, removal, or deportation proceedings.” Police departments in all four Hawaiʻi counties have agreements described in the reporting that enroll officers in task forces at federal agencies including Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, and the FBI; officials at those departments have said the agreements do not allow officers to participate in immigration enforcement.
Advocates argued that state-level laws are still needed to add safeguards. Liza Ryan Gill, co-coordinator of the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, said it had become “abundantly clear that the Department of Homeland Security is no longer an agency that abides by constitutional norms.” Gill added that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrives with a judicial warrant, “there is nothing we can pass or do that can stop them from executing that warrant,” and said the legislative package is intended to protect Hawaii from being drawn into unconstitutional actions by what she described as a rogue agency.
The momentum for the bills is also tied to events described as shaping lawmakers’ urgency. In January, after a rally and vigil for people who had died in ICE detention centers and the two Minnesota protestors who were identified as Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Gov. Josh Green said he hoped a package of immigration-related bills could be fast-tracked. “Anything that states can do to make it clear that we’re standing up against this kind of violence and that we’re protecting people, is the right thing to do,” Green told Civil Beat at the rally, according to the reporting. On Thursday, Green’s spokesperson, Makana McClellan, said that remained his position.
Rhoads said fast-tracking in the Senate had begun, with at least one bill crossing to the House. Senate Bill 2203, he said, would make it a criminal offense for law enforcement officers to wear a facial covering except under certain circumstances, such as undercover operations. The bill’s language, as described in the reporting, would say that prohibiting face masks unless conditions are met would improve public trust by distinguishing legitimate law enforcement from the perception of secret police tactics used by federal agents under the Trump administration. After amendments and pushback from the Honolulu Police Department and the state Department of Law Enforcement, the bill was amended to allow masks during undercover operations.
Supporters said similar “No Secret Police” legislation has been passed or introduced in other states, including California, where the new law described in the reporting prohibited law enforcement officers, including federal officers, from wearing masks in most circumstances while allowing masks during undercover operations. Fernandes said advocates remained hopeful the measures could reach Green’s desk before the legislative session ends, saying they had “haven’t heard from any elected that there’s a change in plans to fast-track these measures.”
At the same time, Sablan said advocates were accounting for the possibility of court challenges to laws opposing the federal administration’s aims. She said, “We want to have the strongest bills possible. And that does take deliberation and time,” adding that if the legislation reaches enactment in mid-April instead of May, supporters would consider that a success. Rep. David Tarnas, chair of the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said he prioritized getting the bills right over speed, describing the measures as complicated and saying he wanted to work closely with the Attorney General’s Office and with immigration lawyers in Hawaii to ensure the language was solid and protected states’ rights without limiting federal agents’ assigned responsibilities.