On May 22, the Nevada Legislature approved a resolution making Nevada the first state in the United States to urge Congress to protect places of worship and schools from immigration-enforcement actions.
The measure is Assembly Joint Resolution 9, and it was drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
“We had seen and heard from community members who were expressing grave concern about what they were seeing happen in other communities,” said Athar Haseebullah, the group’s director, in a phone interview.
He said educators and faith leaders expressed fears to him about the potential for ICE actions. “People have been afraid to come to church, and they’ve seen their congregation numbers drop pretty significantly,” he added.
In January, the Trump administration rescinded Biden-era guidelines that prohibited arrests of immigrants at “sensitive locations” such as churches and schools. The Trump administration and a major immigration-advocacy group saw this rescission through very different lenses.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”
According to the National Immigration Law Center, “The rescission is especially pernicious in its attempt to make immigrants feel unsafe even in spaces that are the core of a civil society.”
Federal efforts
While Nevada is the first state to pass a resolution opposing the Trump administration’s decision, there have been efforts on the federal level to attempt to reverse it.
In February, 22 members of Congress, including Nevada Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, introduced the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act—which would limit immigration-enforcement actions at churches, schools and hospitals. The bill was reviewed in short order and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but as of press time, no further action had been taken—and given that Republicans control the U.S. Senate, further action is unlikely.
Also in February, more than two dozen Christian and Jewish groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the rescission, alleging that drops in attendance due to fears of arrest would cause these groups harm. In April, a federal court in Washington, D.C., rejected the churches’ argument, ruling that the harm they alleged could not be remedied by reinstating the Biden-era protections.
Possible ripple effects
Haseebullah has a list of concerns about possible ripple effects that immigration enforcement actions in schools or places of worship could have on Nevada communities.
“It’s not only destabilizing for the person who’s … targeted by ICE; it’s a traumatic experience for everybody who’s in the surrounding area, who has to witness it as well,” he said.
He worries about increased absenteeism in schools if families become worried about ICE activity on campuses, and he noted that absenteeism could potentially cause schools’ ratings to drop.
Haseebullah also cited the potential economic impacts of widespread deportations, noting, “Undocumented people in Nevada paid an estimated $507 million in state and local taxes in 2022, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That’s money that can’t be supplanted if the Trump administration had its way, and everybody who was undocumented was no longer in the state.”
Yet another concern: Widespread deportations could negatively affect Nevada’s largest industry, tourism.
“Until we really get a handle on making sure that ICE does not appear to be kidnapping people off the streets, including the streets of Nevada, I don’t see how our tourism sector is going to end up turning around,” he said, referring to a recent dip in Las Vegas tourism. In March, tourism there was down 7.8% from 2024, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority—a figure that some experts have attributed to Trump administration policies.
“If you are a tourist in a foreign country who wants to come to Nevada to spend your money, and you turn on the news, and you see masked ICE officers grabbing people off the streets who were here on lawful student visas or other visas, and then you have the option to instead go to a place like Dubai or to Macau or to the Bahamas, I don’t know that Las Vegas is going end up being your top choice—or that Reno would end up being your top choice, or anywhere in the United States would end up being your top choice,” Haseebullah said.
What is the resolution likely to achieve?
A “joint resolution” is one that both the state Senate and Assembly approved. After being passed by the Assembly with a 27-15 vote, JRS 9 was approved in the Senate in a 14-7 vote, with Sen. Lori Rogich of Las Vegas the only Republican to vote in favor, along with all Democrats.
Such resolutions do not have the force of law.
“Because immigration enforcement really lies in the federal government’s hands, the state Legislature isn’t capable of addressing where and how enforcement can actually occur, in a really clean fashion,” Haseebullah said. “So this resolution came forward specifically to address and urge Congress to at least protect these locations. … We’re hoping that this can trickle over, and if there’s nationwide momentum, at a minimum, we can help to reverse this change in policy that the administration engaged in with respect to sensitive locations.”
Next steps
Haseebullah hopes that more churches and other organizations concerned about immigration-enforcement actions will connect with the ACLU to share their concerns. But he understands why they may not.
“I think the hard part is for them to come forward,” he said. “I have also offered to sue on their behalf based on their reduced numbers. … But what I’ve heard from faith leaders … they’re terribly afraid of the federal government. They don’t want to ruffle feathers.”
He also hopes that, after SJR 9, other states follow suit.
“What we’re trying to do is use this as part of a strategy that we’re able to share with our counterparts to have them do the same, with respect to their state legislatures,” he said. “It remains confusing to me why anyone would want to not protect our schools and our houses of worship.”