Alabama Enacts SB63: A New Chapter in Immigration Enforcement
In a move signaling a hardening stance on immigration, Alabama has Passed Senate Bill 63 (AL SB63), a piece of legislation that mandates state and local law enforcement agencies to collect fingerprints and DNA samples from individuals in their custody identified as "illegal aliens." The bill, which was enacted on May 12, 2025, and is set to become effective on June 1, 2025, has ignited a firestorm of debate, with proponents citing public safety and critics raising alarms about civil liberties and potential for discriminatory practices.
LegiEquity's analysis of SB63 reveals a concerning Overall Impact score of 80% Bias with High Confidence. This suggests the law is highly likely to have disproportionate and adverse effects on specific demographic groups. Notably, the analysis indicates a 90% Bias related to race, with a specific 90% bias score for Latinx (LX) individuals, and a 70% Bias related to religion, with a corresponding 70% bias score for Muslim (MU) individuals. These figures underscore fears that SB63 could lead to targeted enforcement and exacerbate existing societal inequities.
The Bill's Purpose: Data Collection and Database Expansion
The core of SB63, as detailed in the enrolled version of the act, amends the Code of Alabama 1975 to add Section 31-13-36. This new section explicitly states: "Whenever a law enforcement agency in this state has an illegal alien in its custody, the agency may not release the illegal alien until the agency has collected a full set of fingerprints and a known DNA reference sample from the individual, if a sample has not previously been collected." The collected fingerprints are to be submitted to the Alabama State Law Enforcement Agency for cataloging, while DNA samples will go to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences for analysis and entry into the appropriate database.
The bill defines an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" as "An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States under any federal law, regulation, order, or directive." Furthermore, SB63 amends Section 36-18-32, increasing certain court costs to bolster the Alabama DNA Database Fund. Specifically, the fee in criminal cases (including bond forfeitures and alias/capias warrants) will rise from twelve dollars ($12) to fifteen dollars ($15). Of this, for fiscal year 2026 and thereafter, fourteen dollars ($14) will be directed to the Alabama DNA Database Fund, an increase from the previous eleven dollars ($11) allocated for fiscal years 2012 through 2025.
A Swift Journey Through the Legislature, Marked by Partisan Lines
SB63's path to becoming law was relatively swift, particularly in its initial stages, and notably lacked bipartisan support, indicating a strong push from the majority party.
Sponsored by Senator Lance Bell (Rep), whose LegiEquity effectiveness score is 45.0, the bill was first read and referred to the Senate Committee on County and Municipal Government on February 4, 2025. This committee, holding a LegiEquity power score of 70.0, reported the bill out favorably just a day later, on February 5, 2025.
The bill then moved quickly through the Senate. After a second reading on February 5, it faced its third reading and a crucial vote on February 13, 2025. The "Motion to Read a Third Time and Pass" was adopted (Roll Call 86) with 24 Yeas to 7 Nays, with 3 absent. The clear majority in favor, despite the Nays, highlighted the partisan nature of the bill's support.
Upon Senate passage, SB63 was immediately sent to the House of Representatives on the same day, February 13, 2025, where it was referred to the influential House Committee on Ways and Means General Fund. This committee boasts a significant LegiEquity power score of 80.0. It reported the bill out on February 19, 2025, and the bill received its second reading in the House on February 20, 2025.
There was a considerable pause in action before the bill came up for its final legislative hurdle in the House. On May 6, 2025, the "Motion to Read a Third Time and Pass" was adopted (Roll Call 1182) with a decisive 76 Yeas to 7 Nays, with 17 not voting and 3 absent. Again, the vote count underscored the lack of bipartisan consensus.
Following House passage, the bill was enrolled and signature requested on May 6, 2025. It was delivered to the Governor on the same day and officially enacted into law on May 12, 2025.
Context, Concerns, and Historical Echoes
Alabama is no stranger to stringent immigration legislation. The state's 2011 law, HB 56, was one of the most far-reaching and controversial state-level immigration measures in the U.S., drawing legal challenges and widespread criticism for its impact on immigrant communities and the state's economy. While SB63 is more narrowly focused on data collection from those already in custody, it operates within this established context of assertive state action on immigration.
The mandatory collection of biometric data like fingerprints and DNA from a specific class of individuals based on immigration status raises significant privacy and civil liberties concerns. Critics argue that such measures can lead to a slippery slope, normalizing the collection of sensitive personal data from other groups and potentially chilling community-police relations. The high bias scores identified by LegiEquity for racial and religious minorities suggest these concerns are not unfounded and that the law's implementation could disproportionately target already vulnerable populations.
The creation and expansion of DNA databases, particularly those that might include individuals not convicted of serious crimes, also bring forth ethical questions about data security, potential misuse, and the long-term implications of state-held genetic information.
While proponents may argue SB63 enhances law enforcement's ability to identify individuals and solve crimes, the lack of bipartisan support and the stark warnings from LegiEquity's bias analysis paint a picture of a law that could deepen divisions and lead to inequitable outcomes. As Alabama prepares to implement SB63, its real-world impact on communities, law enforcement practices, and the state's adherence to principles of equal treatment will be closely watched.
LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.
Related Articles
You might also be interested in these articles