In one of his final acts as New Jersey governor, Phil Murphy signed legislation aimed at developing policies to protect immigrants at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, hospitals, courthouses and houses of worship.
But he also pocket-vetoed two other immigrant-protection measures, contending the bills would open the state up to lawsuits and jeopardize billions of dollars of federal funding.
Immigration advocates criticized Murphy, whose two-term tenure as governor ended Tuesday, for what they called his overly cautious approach. They argued the Democrat was proactively bowing to President Donald Trump’s administration at a time of ramped-up immigration enforcement.
“Gov. Murphy can say he vetoed these bills because he doesn’t want to instigate the Trump administration, but ICE is already here kidnapping people in our communities,” Nedia Morsy, executive director of the nonprofit Make the Road New Jersey, said in a statement, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “We cannot obey in advance out of fear of what Trump might do. We have to use every tool and every bit of leverage we have to protect our neighbors.”
After Murphy announced he would not sign the two protection bills, immigration advocates called on the state Legislature and new Gov. Mikie Sherrill to establish data privacy protections and further limit state and local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Spokespeople for Sherrill, who was inaugurated Tuesday, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Discussion of the protections comes as immigrant communities in the Garden State face increasing pressure from the federal immigration enforcement agents, including in Edison, Newark and Morristown. An estimated 565,800 undocumented immigrants lived in New Jersey as of 2023, according to data from the Center for Migration Studies.
Murphy signed the Safe Communities Act, which requires the state attorney general to develop model policies to “ensure personal freedom in sensitive locations,” including schools and courthouses. Supporters said the bill is meant to limit federal immigration officers from operating at those locations.
The Trump administration lifted restrictions on immigration enforcement at such sites when it returned to the White House last year.
New Jersey isn’t among the list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” identified by the Trump administration last year, but the state has some policies restricting state and local police from cooperating with federal law enforcement. The New Jersey Immigrant Trust Directive, first issued in 2018 by former state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, largely limits state and local police from assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
One of the bills Murphy vetoed would codify the directive into law. He said the bill went beyond the directive in ways that could open the state up to lawsuits. The directive has withstood previous challenges in federal court, but Murphy warned new lawsuits could put the existing policies at risk.
The bill would limitemunicipal, county and state law enforcement agencies from assisting federal immigration authorities by using any funding appropriated to the agency, a policy not mentioned in the existing directive, according to Murphy’s office.
His office also said the bill would eliminate an exception in the current directive that allows local and state police to inform federal immigration officers of an incarcerated individual's release from custody when that person has been ordered removed by a judge and has been charged or convicted of certain violent or serious crimes.
“Renewed litigation would also put our time-tested Immigrant Trust Directive at risk, endangering hundreds of thousands of immigrants in New Jersey in one fell swoop,” Murphy said in a statement. “I cannot in good conscience allow that to happen.”
He nullified the legislation through a pocket veto, which allows a government executive to veto legislation by taking no action on a given measure.
The other bill Murphy pocket-vetoed, the Privacy Protection Act, would prevent state government agencies and health care facilities from sharing sensitive personal information with federal authorities.
Murphy said the measure included a “drafting oversight,” which he said wasn't uncovered during the legislative process or his initial review of the bill. He said in a statement that the bill as written "could be construed to conflict with federal law and, if signed, could jeopardize billions of dollars in federal funding for critical programs."
The bill generally prohibits government agencies from collecting individuals' immigration and citizenship information, except when necessary to assess someone's eligibility for public benefits. Murphy proposed amending the bill so that it would only limit government agencies from collecting such information from members of the public.
He said he “strongly supports” the bill's rationale and recommended the Legislature adopt an amendment to revise the wording so that it can be passed as soon as possible.
