Ohio Rep. Josh Williams, R‑Sylvania, introduced House Bill 282 on May 20. The House Judiciary Committee is currently reviewing it.
The bill proposes that a person’s immigration status be required in criminal sentencing and bail decisions. it seeks to amend several sections of the Ohio Revised Code related to sentencing, bail conditions, and community control to include immigration status as a judicial factor.
Under the current Ohio statutes (codes 2929.12, 2929.15, 2929.22, 2929.25, and 2937.011), judges consider various elements—such as the severity of the offense, the risk of recidivism, and prior criminal history—when setting sentences and bail conditions. HB 282 proposes adding immigration status to that list. Specifically, the bill would require courts to evaluate whether an offender is unlawfully present in the U.S. or subject to a federal immigration detainer when determining sanctions, release terms, sentencing length, and community control conditions.
According to Williams, incorporating immigration status enhances judicial discretion and ensures public safety. In a statement published on the Ohio House website, he said the bill “adds an important and often-overlooked dimension in risk assessment.”
Williams maintained that judges, already weighing factors like prior noncompliance or threat to the community, require immigration status as a relevant metric. He emphasized that “this is not about discrimination but about refining the tools judges use to protect public safety.”
Critics warn that the bill risks institutionalizing “xenophobia” within the legal system of Ohio. Opposition was voiced during early committee discussions, particularly from immigrant advocacy groups.
Commentators cited by the Ohio Capital Journal likened the measure to a broader trend of anti-immigrant legislation, warning that it could reinforce racial disparities in sentencing by disproportionately affecting noncitizens. Opponents argue that it “codifies racism and xenophobia” by giving courts the license to penalize individuals based on legal status rather than behavior.
Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU–Ohio, caution that the policy could lead to harsher penalties or pretrial detention for noncitizens, even when their legal presence is unrelated to the charged offense. They argue that a defendant’s immigration status may not reflect actual flight risk or danger to the public. It should be noted that federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rejected blanket measures based on immigration status without individualized assessment. This precedent may come into play if the legislation advances.
Some legal experts refute the alleged correlation linking immigration status with increased risk. They point out that Ohio’s bail and sentencing statutes already include factors like prior convictions, community ties, and compliance history. Adding immigration status might unfairly duplicate those considerations. Opponents also warn that this could exacerbate community mistrust, leading noncitizens to avoid engagement with courts or law enforcement.
With the bill in committee, neutral and opposing testimony is expected in the coming weeks. If it clears the Judiciary Committee, HB 282 would proceed to the Ohio House floor before moving to the Senate. With shifting political dynamics in the legislature, its future remains uncertain.
Supporters see the bill as a way to bolster public safety tools and increase judicial discretion. Critics fear the law could institutionalize bias, potentially lengthening sentences or denying bail based on extraneous factors like immigration status.
