Legislation

This bill would create sweeping restrictions against people from countries that have been deemed as “foreign adversaries” by the federal government (including China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia), as well as any other country designated as a threat to critical infrastructure by the governor.

Each of these bills would require social media companies to get parental consent for minors under a certain age to use social media. The age cutoffs differ (age 16 for one, age 14 for the others. And one bill would not allow users under 14, regardless of parental consent). Each of these bills contain age verification requirements. SB 199 and HB 1178 would require ALL social media users to verify their age. And HB 1178 would require social media platforms to regularly estimate whether Indiana users are at least 14 years old based on how much time the user spends on the platform. If the company isn’t confident enough, it must treat the user as a minor. HB 1178 would also require social media companies to keep proof of parental consent and disable certain features, including push notifications, reposts, likes, and reactions. SB 199 would establish a social media curfew for minors – from 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. While we understand the concerns around minor access to social media and mental health, we oppose these bills because they would violate the First Amendment rights of minors. To be clear, parents already have the right to decide whether their minor children can use social media. The government does not have that right. Some of the provisions in these bills go even further – violating the First Amendment rights of all Hoosiers by requiring them to hand over personal identifying information. No one should have to give up their privacy to participate online.

The ACLU of Indiana is monitoring a number of anti-trans bills.

SB 138 would let public schools and charter schools hire, or approve as volunteers, school chaplains who meet specified education background requirements. Chaplains would provide secular guidance and support to students and staff. They could also provide nonsecular services with permission from the student and, in the case of minors, a parent. This bill would violate important separation of church and state constitutional protections. Chaplains are religious advisers by definition. School counselors are trained to provide secular support for students. Chaplains are not. Placing them in an official role inside public schools — whether paid or voluntary — creates an environment ripe for religious coercion and indoctrination, especially in a school setting where authority dynamics are unavoidable.

Together, these bills would expand immigration enforcement in Indiana by tightening “sanctuary” restrictions, mandating cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), blurring the lines of state and local enforcement, and escalating penalties for anyone who doesn’t comply. All three bills push public institutions (including law enforcement, local government, and public colleges) toward broader cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including treating ICE detainers like mandatory holds rather than requests. Even U.S. citizens who present a passport or birth certificate could face prolonged detention while their citizenship is verified if they are subject to a detainer request.

This bill would prevent the governor from ordering the Indiana National Guard to police communities in the state. It would protect the National Guard’s mission of responding to emergencies such as natural disasters, riots, and acts of terrorism.

In Indiana, only the legislature can place constitutional amendments on the ballot for voters to decide — and it is a rare and multiyear process. A proposed amendment must pass the General Assembly (both the House and Senate) in one legislative session and then pass again (with identical language) in the next session after a general election. At that point, it is placed on the ballot in the next general election, and voters can approve or reject it with a simple majority. This Senate Joint Resolution has already passed one session, and the General Assembly is considering it for a second. If it passes again, voters in the 2026 election will be asked whether or not bail can be denied for a person who is deemed “a serious risk to others or the community.” Right now, the state constitution says that people charged with crimes other than murder or treason are eligible for bail. We oppose this amendment because it contains vague language that will keep more people who haven’t been convicted of a crime in Indiana’s overcrowded jails. Lawmakers should be working on the broken cash bail system, rather than contributing to mass incarceration.

This bill would give mentally capable, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less the option to obtain and take medication that would allow them to peacefully end their lives. It contains numerous safeguards against possible abuse, including requirements for witnesses, self-administration of the medication, mental health evaluations, and criminal penalties for coercion. We support this bill because it upholds the fundamental right of individuals to make deeply personal decisions about both life and death. Decisions about end-of-life care are immensely personal. Every terminally ill individual should have the liberty to choose how they spend their final days and face death. This autonomy includes access to the full spectrum of end-of-life care options, including hospice, palliative care, and the right to seek physician-assisted aid in dying.

Senate Bill 11 and HB 1119 represent a disturbing and barbaric escalation of state power. Instead of shifting away from capital punishment, both bills would allow the state to execute people by firing squad under certain conditions. HB 1119 would also allow the use of nitrogen hypoxia – which causes suffocation. The United Nations says the method “will likely violate the prohibition on torture.” Both bills would allow these violent execution methods to be implemented behind a veil of secrecy that would make it practically impossible to investigate mistakes, unsafe practices, or constitutional violations. We oppose these bills because they are inhumane and push Indiana further down the path of expanding the death penalty — a cruel, irreversible practice that should be abolished.