HELENA, Mont. — The Montana Senate on March 21 voted 31-19 to concur in House Bill 214, a measure that would require county prosecutors to notify the state attorney general when they decline to prosecute certain cases involving people who are subject to federal immigration detention.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Manzella, told the committee the measure “codifies that the state may actually prosecute illegal aliens who commit state crimes” and would address what he described as “catch and release” concerns when local prosecutors decline prosecution. Manzella also said the attorney general has supervisory authority over county attorneys.

Supporters said the measure would allow state authorities to step in where local prosecutors decline prosecution. Opponents — including Missoula County officials, who testified through Senator Olson — said the bill would impose substantial administrative burdens and costs. Olson said the county estimates it would require reviewing immigration status in many declined cases and that “they consider [that] to be about 7,000 cases per year.”

Senator Newman quoted the state attorney general’s written view and said, “This bill is not constitutional. Federal immigration enforcement is a civil enforcement.” Other opponents raised concerns about prison and fiscal impacts: Senator Smith warned that expanding state prosecutions across Title 45 could increase incarceration costs and said the bill likely has substantial fiscal implications.

Senator Emmerich and others defended the bill, arguing the requirement is limited to the specific class of cases described in subsection 1 and that the attorney general or courts would resolve broader constitutional questions. In closing, Manzella said some counties already absorb the cost of incarceration and said the bill “empower[s] our counties [and] empower[s] local law enforcement.”

The final vote was 31 in favor and 19 opposed. The clerk recorded: "With 31 senators voting aye, and 19 senators voting nay, House Bill 214 has been concurred in." The bill will proceed according to the Legislature’s next steps for bills recommended for concurrence.

Discussion vs. decision

Discussion: Committee testimony and floor debate centered on whether the measure would (1) exceed state authority by encroaching on federal immigration enforcement, (2) impose new administrative duties on county attorneys, and (3) create uncalculated fiscal and incarceration costs.

Direction/assignment: The bill requires county prosecutors to notify the attorney general when they decline to prosecute the specific class of cases described in the bill’s subsection 1; the attorney general has supervisory authority as already codified in state law.

Formal action: The Senate concurred in House Bill 214 by voice/vote and recorded a roll-call tally of 31–19.

Ending

Passage of HB214 came after extended debate over constitutional limits and local fiscal impacts; opponents urged caution about costs and federal preemption, while supporters said the measure closes local prosecutorial gaps. Further legal review or court action could follow if the bill becomes law.