A bill that would require health care facilities to monitor federal immigration officers, and to exclude them in some situations, is running into headwinds in the Oregon capitol.
The bill was a joint effort between the labor union representing Oregon nurses and Sen. Wlnsvey Campos, D-Beaverton.
FILE - The badge of a Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent near an ICE facility in Broadview, Ill., Friday, Oct. 3, 2025.
Erin Hooley / AP
The overwhelming majority of testimony submitted about the bill to date has come from nurses and other health care workers who support it. Many said fear of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers is leading patients to miss appointments and skip care.
“If healthcare settings can be spared from enforcement, there may still be a fear to leave the home, but at least our campuses can be safe spaces,” wrote Amy Celichowski, a physician associate in Milwaukie who was among the more than 200 people who’ve written in support.
But a handful of employers that would be directly regulated by the bill are raising concerns about it, and attorneys at the capitol say it could be challenged as unconstitutional.
The Hospital Association of Oregon, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s 60 community hospitals, is opposing the bill.
In a letter, the group’s executive for external affairs, Sean Kolmer, said he shares Democratic lawmakers’ concerns that the Trump administration has allowed immigration enforcement in sensitive areas like hospitals, which previous administrations directed agents to avoid.
But he argues that the bill incorrectly shifts responsibility and liability for federal agents’ decisions onto hospitals. A hospital that fails to make reasonable efforts to comply with the proposed law could have its license suspended or revoked.
“Words matter here, as a worker who does too little could trigger penalties under this bill, and a worker who does too much could face federal criminal charges or other serious consequences,” Kolmer wrote.
The chief executive of Salem Health, Cheryl Wolfe, said in submitted testimony that the bill creates new work for hospital staff, like validating judicial warrants and monitoring agents. That would potentially compete with patient needs at times when staffing is tight.
“Training staff to navigate new high-risk workflows will require considerable financial and operational investment — yet the bill provides no resources and no implementation runway,” she said.
In addition to hospitals, the bill would regulate federally qualified health centers. These primary care clinics are geared toward caring for underserved and uninsured groups, including many immigrant populations.
Marty Carty, the government affairs director at the Oregon Primary Care Association — which represents FQHCs — said his group believes immigration enforcement should not be happening at their clinics. But the association asked, without success, for FQHCs to be left out of the bill. Now, they’re negotiating over several pain points.
Those include a problem with the way the bill would be enforced: The Oregon Health Authority is empowered to suspend or revoke the license of facilities that don’t comply, but according to Carty and OHA, the agency doesn’t have that type of oversight over the federal clinics.
Carty said working through issues with the bill has been challenging because lawmakers have little time to work in the short session and didn’t have the text for the bill when the session began.
“I don’t blame any one party. It’s just the nature of what it is,” Carty said.
According to Carty, much of the bill’s requirements are already part of how FQHCs operate. For example, he said, many provide legal services on site. But he is concerned the requirement to exclude federal agents from patient care areas could lead to dangerous confrontations.
“I worry that requiring a worker or administrator to not allow access puts them between a locked door and an aggressive federal agent,” Carty said. “That doesn’t feel like a safe place.”
That section of the bill also raised a flag with the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Counsel, the attorneys who draft and review bills for state lawmakers.
In an opinion, posted by Sen. Deb Patterson, D-Salem, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health Care, those attorneys say the bill could be subject to a legal challenge and may violate the part of the constitution that gives federal acts priority over state laws in most situations.
States are prohibited against enacting laws that discriminate against the federal government, or that require employers to discriminate against it, according to that legislative counsel opinion.
Patterson said she shared the memo in the spirit of transparency, and continues to support the bill.
“People should be able to seek needed care without fear,” Patterson said. “There are ongoing conversations with hospitals and FQHCs about the bill, and I think there is a path to move the bill forward.”
A work session on the bill is scheduled for Feb. 16. Sen. Campos, the bill’s sponsor, didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
