New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a bill that would expand the ability of people in the state to file civil lawsuits over alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution during civil immigration enforcement operations. The proposal, Assembly Bill A4446, carries the formal title Fight Unlawful Conduct and Keep Individuals and Communities Empowered Act and was introduced on Feb. 24, 2026 by Assemblywoman Katie Brennan and Assemblyman Ravi S. Bhalla, both Democrats representing District 32 in Hudson County.
According to legislative summaries, the bill would further limit when local police may notify federal immigration officials about a person’s release from custody, restrict the sharing of certain non-public information with federal immigration agencies, bar the use of state and local resources to assist in civil immigration enforcement beyond what federal law requires, and add oversight and reporting requirements covering interactions between state agencies and federal immigration authorities. The proposal would also create a new right for individuals to sue agents who, while conducting civil immigration enforcement, allegedly engage in conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution.
Under current New Jersey policy, local law enforcement may cooperate with federal immigration officials in cases involving serious criminal charges or convictions. The proposed legislation seeks to reinforce those boundaries and more clearly define where cooperation is permitted and where it is prohibited. At the center of A4446 is language stating that “any person may bring a civil action” against someone who, “while conducting civil immigration enforcement,” knowingly engages in conduct that violates the Constitution. If a person prevails, the bill says they could recover monetary damages, including punitive damages, compensation for psychological or physical harm, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and any equitable or declaratory relief available under law.
The bill also lays out factors courts should consider when deciding punitive damages in cases involving someone acting “under color of” federal or state law. Those factors include whether the person wore a facial covering, failed to identify themselves as law enforcement by insignia or by providing a name and identification number, failed to wear or use a body-worn camera when required by law, regulation, or policy, used a vehicle without a license plate or with an out-of-state plate, used crowd control equipment, or intentionally violated a relevant court order or consent decree. The legislation defines several of those terms, including “facial covering” and “crowd control equipment.”
The bill explicitly states that qualified immunity “shall be a defense” to liability under the act. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that can shield government officials from civil liability in certain circumstances and is often a central issue in civil rights cases. According to legislative tracking, A4446 has been introduced and referred to the Assembly Oversight, Reform, and Federal Relations Committee, and a companion measure, S3711, has been proposed in the Senate. Before it could become law, the bill would need to advance through committee hearings, pass both the Assembly and Senate, and be signed by the governor. Lawmakers could still amend the measure during that process.
Public hearings are expected to draw testimony from immigrant advocacy groups, law enforcement representatives, civil liberties organizations, and municipal officials. Courts have long examined the boundary between federal immigration authority and state autonomy. Under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal regulatory programs, but states also cannot interfere with federal enforcement efforts. As written, the bill attempts to define how New Jersey agencies may engage with federal authorities without obstructing federal operations. Any final version would likely face scrutiny over whether it complies with federal statutes and constitutional limits.
The proposal arrives amid heightened debate in New Jersey over federal immigration enforcement tactics and how state and local governments should respond. A press release from Assembly Democrats tied a broader package of immigration-related proposals to an incident described as the detention of 10 people near a light rail station on the Hoboken–Jersey City border, along with wider concerns about masked agents and unmarked vehicles. Legislative Democrats have also described a broader slate of proposals aimed at limiting or discouraging certain immigration enforcement practices in the state, including measures involving private detention facilities and access to crime scenes. Although Brennan and Bhalla represent Hudson County, A4446 would apply statewide, including in Morris County. For local residents, the practical question is how often civil immigration enforcement intersects with public spaces, workplaces, transit hubs, and local policing, and what legal options people would have if they believe a federal officer violated constitutional protections during an enforcement action.
If enacted, the bill would not change federal immigration law itself. Instead, it would attempt to create a state-law pathway for lawsuits tied to alleged constitutional violations during civil immigration enforcement, with damages and attorney’s fees available to prevailing plaintiffs. Bills that regulate or target federal enforcement activity often raise questions about the line between state and federal power, including disputes rooted in the Supremacy Clause. In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice has also signaled a willingness to litigate New Jersey’s immigration-related restrictions, including with a lawsuit tied to the state’s approach to ICE access on certain state property. For now, A4446’s future will depend on committee action, possible amendments, and whether it can advance through both chambers of the Legislature.