What new law did pritzker pass regarding illegal immigrants and healthcare
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Governor J.B. Pritzker signed HB 1312 in December 2025, a package of laws that creates new protections for people without lawful immigration status by restricting federal civil immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” such as courthouses, hospitals, day cares and university campuses, and by allowing people to sue federal officers if they believe their rights were violated [1] [2] [3]. Separately, in 2025 Pritzker proposed and later implemented budget and emergency-rule changes that scale back state-funded health coverage for certain undocumented adults — including closing enrollment for adults under 65 and limiting the Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults program after audits showed costs far above initial projections [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What HB 1312 actually does: protective limits, not blanket immunity
HB 1312 creates statutory protections that restrict civil immigration enforcement activity at a set of “sensitive locations” — courthouses, hospitals, licensed child care centers, higher-education institutions and similar sites — and requires those institutions to adopt protocols for interacting with federal agents; it also gives people the ability to sue officers if they believe their constitutional rights were violated [1] [2] [8] [3]. State accounts and local outlets frame the law as tools to reduce the chilling effect federal operations had on victims, witnesses and people accessing services after the Midway Blitz enforcement actions [8] [3].
2. How proponents and opponents cast the law
Supporters and immigrant advocates present HB 1312 as restoring trust in public institutions and protecting vulnerable people seeking health care, education and legal help — claiming those communities were deterred from courthouses, hospitals and schools during federal enforcement sweeps [2] [3] [9]. Opponents — including federal officials and some conservative outlets — say the law conflicts with federal authority and the Supremacy Clause and accuse state leaders of impeding immigration enforcement and public safety [1] [10] [9].
3. The parallel health-coverage rollback: budget cuts and emergency rules
In 2025 Pritzker’s administration moved to curtail state-funded health programs for immigrants without legal status. The administration proposed eliminating the Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults (HBIA) program for people aged roughly 42–64 in its 2026 budget and later closed enrollment for under-65 undocumented adults and capped enrollment for older groups after costs ballooned [4] [6] [7]. State auditors and reporting found the programs’ costs exceeded initial projections by large margins, prompting the administration to argue the changes were fiscal necessities [4] [5] [11].
4. Cost accounting and the audit that prompted change
An auditor general review and subsequent reporting said estimated costs for some HBIS/HBIA cohorts were dramatically underprojected — for example, one component was estimated at $58.4 million for three years but was reported at $262.2 million — leading critics and some lawmakers to call for shutting down or reining in the programs [4] [5]. Conservative policy analysts and some state fiscal pieces argued cumulative spending on migrant services and health care reached into the hundreds of millions or billions and that budget pressures required program cuts [11] [5].
5. Human-impact perspective and advocacy reaction
Advocates warned the enrollment closures and emergency rules will remove access to care for tens of thousands of Illinois residents without legal status — WBEZ estimated nearly 33,000 people could be affected — and groups like ICIRR argued the changes increase costs and barriers for immigrant communities [7] [12]. Supporters of the cuts maintain the state must balance the budget and ensure programs are accurately administered after the audit findings [4] [5].
6. The political logic: protection on one front, retrenchment on another
The two shifts together show a dual approach: Pritzker and allies framed HB 1312 as defending immigrants’ civil protections and access to institutions, while fiscal and audit realities drove scaling back of state-funded health coverage for certain undocumented adults [2] [4] [6]. This combination lets the governor portray support for immigrant communities’ safety and privacy while responding to criticism about runaway program costs [8] [11].
7. What reporting does not settle or explicitly say
Available sources do not mention whether HB 1312 or the health-program changes affect eligibility for federal benefits beyond limiting local cooperation with enforcement; they also do not provide detailed legal analyses predicting how federal courts will treat claims under HB 1312 (not found in current reporting). The sources do not show definitive outcomes yet from lawsuits the law may prompt (not found in current reporting).
Taken together, the record in these sources shows Pritzker signed a law strengthening state limits on federal civil immigration enforcement in sensitive places (HB 1312) while his administration concurrently moved to shrink direct state health benefits for many undocumented adults after audit findings and soaring program costs [1] [2] [4] [6].