State Legislation Impacts Immigrant Access to Health Coverage and Immigration Enforcement

As of June 2026, 2025 and 2026 state legislative sessions have led to significant changes in how immigrants access health coverage and other services, with some states reducing benefits while others expand protections, according to a KFF analysis of publicly available materials and the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Immigration Legislation Database.

Access to State-Funded Health Coverage and Other Services

At least six states, including Washington, D.C., have scaled back state-funded health coverage for immigrants due to budget pressures, according to KFF. These actions include eliminating or reducing coverage for adults, limiting enrollment caps, and restricting benefits for immigrant children and pregnant people. For example, California’s 2026-27 budget proposal includes cuts to dental benefits and potential work requirements for some adults, aligning with new Medicaid rules under the 2025 reconciliation law.

Conversely, New Mexico and New York have plans to expand state-funded coverage for immigrants affected by the 2025 reconciliation law, which restricts eligibility for federally funded programs. New Mexico will cover Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and lawfully present immigrants losing Medicaid and SNAP benefits, while New York will extend coverage through its Essential Plan. Washington also increased funding for a state-funded food assistance program to support immigrants previously eligible for SNAP benefits.

Some states have also enacted policies limiting access to benefits. Idaho reduced income thresholds for refugee medical assistance, and Florida barred undocumented immigrants from in-state tuition. Tennessee held churches liable for housing aid to immigrants who commit crimes, while Oregon and Colorado removed barriers to in-state tuition for immigrants.

Immigration Enforcement and Data Sharing

Several states have strengthened immigration enforcement measures, including criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants convicted of certain crimes. Idaho and Tennessee passed laws making it a state crime for noncitizens to remain in the state after violating federal immigration laws. Florida and Indiana increased penalties for undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Other states, such as Kansas and Mississippi, required local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Missouri and Indiana mandated state agencies to report applicants with unverified immigration status to federal authorities, while Tennessee made it a crime for government employees to withhold information about undocumented immigrants.

In contrast, states like California, New York, and Oregon enacted laws limiting federal immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” such as schools and hospitals. These policies aim to protect immigrants from deportation in settings like healthcare facilities, as reported by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Illinois and Oregon also prohibited schools from sharing student information with federal agents without a warrant.

Legal Challenges and Federal Responses

Several state policies face legal challenges, with courts reviewing whether they conflict with federal law. For example, California’s restrictions on immigration enforcement in sensitive locations have been contested, though recent federal actions against states have largely failed. The Trump administration’s executive order targeting “sanctuary jurisdictions” has not yet led to significant federal penalties, according to the KFF analysis.

States like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon have also limited data sharing with federal immigration authorities. Vermont requires governor approval for state agencies to enter enforcement agreements, while Maryland and New York prohibit local entities from collaborating with federal immigration enforcement.

What’s Next for Immigrant Policy?

The evolving landscape of state legislation highlights growing tensions between local autonomy and federal immigration priorities. As of June 2026, additional policies may emerge during the 2026 legislative sessions, particularly in states still in session. Advocates warn that reduced access to health coverage and increased enforcement could exacerbate disparities, while proponents argue such measures address fiscal and security concerns.