A Late Budget and a Sidelined Session: The City Bar’s 2026 New York State Legislative Wrap-Up

The defining factor of the 2026 session was the legislative calendar. The State Fiscal Year 2027 budget, due April 1, was not finalized until late May — nearly two months late. While regular legislative order generally continued alongside the negotiations, the budget consumed most of Albany’s attention and deliberation, leaving standalone legislation sidelined until the final weeks of session.

The late budget and the fact that it is a gubernatorial election year inevitably shaped the City Bar’s advocacy work, impacting which issues would (and wouldn’t) advance as we worked to focus attention on the bills supported by our committees. Despite the challenges of working under these conditions, the City Bar saw policy successes in both the budget and standalone legislation, highlighted by wins around internet access in homeless shelters, protecting legal services funding and immigration reform.

A City Bar Campaign Reaches the Threshold: WiFi4Homeless

Our biggest win this session was the WiFi for Homeless bill (A.1755-A / S.8026-A), which passed both houses of the Legislature following a multi-year City Bar-led advocacy effort from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The legislation requires temporary housing facilities across New York State to provide residents with internet access meeting baseline standards for speed, net neutrality, and data privacy, with practical carve-outs where service cannot feasibly be provided. State regulations do not currently require shelters to provide internet access, a gap with serious practical consequences for the more than 100,000 people who sleep in the New York City shelter system each night and the thousands more in shelters across the state. Job applications, public benefits enrollment, telehealth, schoolwork, accessing legal services, and housing searches all require internet access; without reliable connectivity, residents of temporary housing face steep barriers to stabilizing their lives.

The effort began with the City Bar Justice Center’s 2020 report, Homeless Need Internet Access to Find a Home, grounded in a survey of current and former shelter residents documenting how the absence of internet access kept New Yorkers trapped in the shelter system. That report became the foundation of the Wifi4Homeless campaign, which grew from a New York City call to action into a statewide legislative effort ultimately supported by more than 60 legal and nonprofit organizations. Our campaign partners included Coalition for the Homeless, VOCAL-NY and the NYCLU. Along the way, the City Bar provided testimony, wrote to and met with elected officials, participated in rallies and press conferences and issued multiple reports on the need for broadband access in shelters. This bill is a 2026 New York State Legislative Agenda item.

The legislation builds on the State’s recent commitment of funding for this purpose: in May 2026, Empire State Development announced an investment of up to $20 million to bring internet access to homeless shelters statewide. The bill establishes the enforceable statutory framework needed to ensure that investment delivers consistent results in shelters across New York.

Initially supported by the Social Welfare Law Committee and Education and the Law Committee the campaign was ultimately endorsed by the following committees: Children and the Law; Domestic Violence; Immigration and Nationality Law; Legal Problems of the Aging; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Rights; New York City Affairs; Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies: Pro Bono and Legal Services; Sex and Law; and Technology, Cyber and Privacy Law.

The bill passed both houses and awaits delivery to the Governor. The City Bar will continue to work with our campaign partners to urge Governor Hochul to sign it into law.

The FY2027 Enacted Budget

City Bar committees commented on several budget proposals, ranging from specific funding streams to technical corrections to substantive policy. Two notable City Bar successes stand out: the preservation of full spending authority for the IOLA Fund following a sustained campaign by the City Bar and its partners, and the enactment of a comprehensive immigration enforcement framework substantially consistent with City Bar positions. The budget provisions below have been signed into law.

Full Spending Authority for the IOLA Fund

The final budget preserved the $102.5 million in spending authority for the Interest on Lawyer Account (IOLA) Fund. The City Bar and the City Bar Justice Center joined partners across the legal community in a sustained campaign to protect the Fund.

The stakes were set in January, when the Executive Budget proposed just $77.5 million for IOLA — roughly 25% less than needed to support the Fund’s existing commitments. IOLA funds are not taxpayer dollars; they are generated through interest on attorney trust accounts and already held by the Fund, which in 2024 began a five-year contracting process to give legal services providers long-term stability. The proposed shortfall threatened cuts of 20–25% to second-year grants, meaning layoffs and reduced services at organizations low-income New Yorkers rely on — organizations that in 2025 alone closed more than 336,000 legal cases benefiting nearly 692,000 New Yorkers.

The City Bar’s efforts included a dedicated campaign: urging the Governor to restore funding in her 30-day amendments, organizing a letter from leaders of New York’s major law firms, participating in the March 17 IOLA lobby day in Albany, and pressing for full funding through final negotiations alongside the New York Legal Services Coalition and other advocates. Both houses of the Legislature restored funding to $102.5 million in their one-house budgets, and that figure held in the enacted budget. (The Senate’s proposal to add a further $50 million for civil legal services was not included in the final agreement.)

The result protects the second year of IOLA’s five-year provider contracts and the civil legal services infrastructure that the private bar’s pro bono work depends on.

Immigration Enforcement Framework

Heading into the budget, the City Bar — through the Immigration & Nationality Law Committee and Rule of Law Task Force — supported the New York for All Act, and urged that, if it were not enacted, the Legislature should adopt the Governor’s proposed Local Cops, Local Crimes Act and the Sensitive Locations Protection Act. Five committees — State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, the Council on Judicial Administration, Civil Rights, Immigration & Nationality, and the Rule of Law Task Force — separately submitted a report supporting the New York State Bivens Act.

While the New York for All Act was not ultimately the vehicle for immigration reform in the final budget, the enacted framework draws substantially on the measures the City Bar identified as essential. The final budget (S.9005-C / A.10005-C, Part LL) included:

• Bans on 287(g) agreements between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, prohibitions on contracts to house civil immigration detainees, and the voiding of existing agreements (the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act);
• A state-law damages remedy against government officials who violate constitutional rights under color of law (the New York State Bivens Act), closing the accountability gap left by the U.S. Supreme Court’s curtailment of federal Bivens actions;
• Prohibitions on state and municipal employees using government resources for immigration enforcement, disclosing personally identifiable information to immigration authorities, or facilitating access to non-public areas without a judicial warrant;
• Empowering privately owned sensitive locations — schools, houses of worship, health care facilities, housing accommodations, and others — to deny immigration enforcement access without a judicial warrant (the Sensitive Locations Protection Act); and
• A prohibition on law enforcement officers, including federal officers operating in New York, wearing face coverings while interacting with the public, with limited exceptions, and a requirement to display agency name and identifying information.

The City Bar issued a June 2025 statement condemning the practice of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests and detentions and welcomes the inclusion of this provision in the final budget.

Funding for Civil Legal Services and Access to Justice

The Pro Bono & Legal Services Committee, Domestic Violence Committee, and Immigration & Nationality Law Committee urged the Legislature and Governor to sustain and strengthen funding for civil legal services and access-to-justice programs. The enacted budget delivered fully on several core priorities while leaving others below the requested levels:

Beyond IOLA, the full funding of HOPP at $40 million and Judiciary Civil Legal Services at $179.5 million means New York’s core civil legal services infrastructure held strong in a difficult budget year. The enacted budget also adopted the Judiciary’s proposed budget in full, which the City Bar called for. On immigration legal services, the enacted $74.2 million represents the first increase after three years of essentially flat funding, but falls well short of the $175 million the City Bar and the CARE for Immigrant Families coalition sought; the Access to Representation Act, which would establish a right to counsel for New Yorkers facing deportation, was not enacted. On eviction representation, the $55 million enacted is $20 million below the request, with New York City receiving less than half its targeted share.

Digital Surveillance: The Safe by Design Act

The Safe by Design Act (S.9008-C / A.10008-C, Part Y) was enacted in modified form through the budget and over the City Bar’s opposition.

The LGBTQ+ Rights Committee, the Civil Rights Committee, and the Sex & Law Committee argued that, while the goal of protecting young people online is sound, the bill’s mandatory “age assurance” regime, parental-notification architecture, and anti-circumvention provisions would burden anonymous speech, pressure platforms away from encryption, expand sensitive data collection, and invite First Amendment challenge, with particular risk to LGBTQ+ youth who rely on online spaces for community and support. “Age assurance” is the statute’s term for verification methods that, because self-declaration is prohibited, in practice mean government ID, third-party verification vendors, or biometric estimation; the anti-circumvention provisions bar platform features that would let users evade those checks or parental controls. The committees also objected to enacting changes of this magnitude through the budget process rather than regular order.

The final version differs in several respects from the proposal the committees reviewed, and some changes are responsive to concerns the committees raised: age assurance is now triggered by specific interactive features rather than operating as a barrier to platform access altogether; the law’s fallback age assurance requirements include at least one method that does not rely on government-issued ID or that preserves the user’s anonymity as to the operator; and communication restrictions were refocused on contact between adults and unconnected minors. The core architecture the committees opposed nonetheless remains in place — mandatory age assurance for the features that define most platforms, a broad parental consent framework, and the anti-circumvention prohibition. The enacted text also fails to provide safety mechanisms concerning encryption. It contains no savings clause providing that compliance shall not require an operator to weaken or remove encrypted communication, leaving that question to enforcement and rulemaking.

The statute takes effect January 1, 2027. Rulemaking is authorized immediately, so the Attorney General’s implementing rules — and the notice-and-comment period for any proposed rules — may open well before the effective date.

Speech-Restrictive Zone Legislation Narrowed: Conduct-Based Prohibitions Enacted

The Civil Rights Committee, Sex & Law Committee, and LGBTQ+ Rights Committee opposed budget and standalone proposals that would have created a 25-foot speech-restrictive zone around each of the State’s reproductive health facilities and houses of worship, restricting demonstrations regardless of conduct — raising concerns under McCullen v. Coakley about restrictions on peaceful, non-obstructive activity in public forums.

The budget enacted Penal Law §240.69 (S.9008-C / A.10008-C, Part QQ), creating a new misdemeanor of “criminal interference with access to a place of worship,” a narrower provision than the version the City Bar opposed.  The final budget created a conduct-based class B misdemeanor limited to places of religious worship: knowingly obstructing entry or exit, or, within 50 feet, knowingly engaging in a course of conduct that places an individual seeking to exit or enter in reasonable fear for their safety. Moreover, new law defines “place of religious worship” broadly to reach any structure a reasonable person would know religious adherents collectively recognize as a place to regularly gather for services, observance, education, or devotional practice, including community centers. It extends to entrances, parking lots, driveways, and any sidewalk touching such places. One may argue that this is capacious enough to capture religious schools, universities, and community centers used for secular purposes.

However, the law does not create traditional buffer zones, and New Yorkers may still gather on public sidewalks, chant, sing, hold signs, and exercise the full range of protected speech. Importantly the fixed demonstration buffer is gone, reproductive health facilities are not covered, and the offense turns on conduct rather than presence.

Insurance Law Provisions

The Insurance Law Committee (through its Legislative & Regulatory Watch Subcommittee, Dan Rabinowitz, Chair, and Paul Zuckerman, Member) reviewed three insurance provisions of the TED budget bill, with mixed results. The Committee’s recommendation to harmonize the scope of the premium-increase notice provisions (Part BB) was not adopted, leaving an inconsistency between the automatic-notice and on-request obligations in Insurance Law §2356. A provision the Committee flagged as redundant (Part DD) was omitted from the final bill entirely. And on the no-fault reforms (Part EE), the Committee’s technical comments met mixed results: some drafting concerns were resolved in the final text, others were not adopted, and on the sequencing of fault and serious-injury determinations the enacted text adopts the opposite of the Committee’s recommendation.

Legislation Passed by Both Houses

Each of the bills below passed both houses of the Legislature before the close of session and await delivery to the Governor. The Policy Department will work with committees to advocate for their signature in the coming months.

Appellate Review of Suppression Decisions

A.673-A / S.329-A amends Criminal Procedure Law §710.70(2) to require appellate review of suppression decisions even after a guilty plea, notwithstanding any waiver of the right to appeal. Supported by the Criminal Justice Operations Committee, Mass Incarceration Task Force and Criminal Courts Committee, the bill closes a gap created by the near-universal practice of conditioning plea bargains on appeal waivers — a practice that has effectively stripped appellate courts of the ability to review police conduct at suppression hearings, since the overwhelming majority of criminal cases resolve by plea.

Consumer Debt Uniformity Act

A.10182-A / S.9760 amends the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the New York City Civil Court Act, the Judiciary Law, and the Uniform City Court Act to establish a single, uniform definition of “consumer debt,” replacing the existing patchwork of inconsistent standards that has complicated litigation and burdened court administration. The City Bar supported an earlier version of the bill through five committees: Civil Court, the Council on Judicial Administration, Litigation, State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, and Housing Court. The bill was amended prior to passage, and the committees are reviewing the enacted version.

A Statewide Supervised Visitation Program

A.65-B / S.9498 directs the Office of Victim Services, in consultation with the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, to establish a statewide supervised visitation program providing culturally sensitive, language-accessible, and affordable services. The bill addresses a critical gap: 32 of New York’s 62 counties currently have no supervised visitation program for custody and parental access matters, leaving families without a safe, neutral setting for court-ordered visits.

The City Bar has supported this legislation across multiple sessions and budget cycles, most recently through a March 2026 report by the Domestic Violence Committee and the Sex & Law Committee, building on prior reports by the Council on Children.

One caveat tempers the win: the bill does not include an appropriation, and the $20 million the City Bar sought for the program was not included in the enacted budget. The statutory framework now exists, but the program’s operation will depend on future funding.

SAFE Shelter Act

A.3264-B / S.7738-A expands access to domestic violence shelters for single survivors without children, including trafficked survivors, LGBTQ+ survivors, and older adults, who are currently excluded from or underserved by the existing shelter framework. The City Bar supported the bill through its SFY 2027 budget advocacy, joined by the Domestic Violence Committee, the Pro Bono & Legal Services Committee, and the Immigration & Nationality Law Committee.

Commissary and Canteen Price Caps

A.2592-B / S.1692-B amends the Correction Law to cap commissary and canteen prices in state correctional facilities at no more than 3% above purchase price, requires the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to maximize bulk purchasing discounts, and prohibits the department from receiving commissions or other financial incentives from vendors. Supported by the Civil Rights Committee and the Corrections and Community Reentry Committee, the bill addresses the economic exploitation of incarcerated people, who are charged marked-up prices for food, hygiene products, and other basic necessities while earning wages that have remained essentially unchanged since 1993.

Restraints and Force on Pregnant and Postpartum Incarcerated Individuals

A.1670-A / S.2667-B strengthens New York’s 2009 ban on shackling pregnant incarcerated individuals by extending protections across all custodial settings — closing a loophole that left police station custody uncovered — and explicitly prohibiting the use of unnecessary force, including chemical agents and tasers, against pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people. The bill also expands privacy protections and access to support during pregnancy-related medical care. The Sex & Law Committee and the Civil Rights Committee supported the legislation in a May 2026 report, grounding their analysis in medical consensus, the New York Equal Rights Amendment, and equal protection principles. The bill was amended prior to passage, and the committees are reviewing the enacted version.

Electronic Filing of Lobbying Disclosures

A.2330 / S.5843 amends the Legislative Law to require that all lobbying filings with the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (COELIG) be submitted electronically, eliminating the paper filing option that COELIG reports accounts for roughly 1,000 filings annually. The Government Ethics & State Affairs Committee, joined by good-government groups, supported the measure as one that will increase transparency, reduce delays in public disclosure, and save state resources currently spent on manual data entry. The bill, which was proposed by COELIG itself, takes effect 30 days after becoming law. This bill is a 2026 New York State Legislative Agenda item.

Commercial Octopus Farming Ban

A.8043-C / S.7421-B amends the Environmental Conservation Law to prohibit commercial octopus aquaculture for human consumption in New York’s territories and waters, with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day per violation. Supported by the Animal Law Committee, the bill is a preemptive measure — no commercial octopus farm currently operates in New York or anywhere in the United States — grounded in a three-part analysis: animal welfare concerns rooted in the scientific consensus on octopus sentience and the impossibility of humane captive care; environmental risks to marine ecosystems, including unsustainable feed conversion demands; and public health risks from disease transmission and antibiotic resistance. By acting before the industry establishes itself, New York joins a small group of jurisdictions addressing the issue prospectively.

Looking Ahead

The Policy Department will be working with committees in the coming months to urge the Governor to sign the bills awaiting her action.

The bills covered in this update are a portion of the City Bar’s legislative work this session. For the status of every bill the City Bar commented on during the 2025–2026 legislative session, see our “Reports on New York State Legislation tracking page.” We will continue to provide updates as bills are delivered and acted on, so please follow us on social media and read the 44th Street eNews and other City Bar publications for the latest.

The City Bar thanks the committees and their members for the work behind these positions:

Animal Law Committee — Mikki L. Golar and Sherry L. Ramsey, Co-Chairs
Children & the Law Committee – Amy R. Hozer-Weber and Laura Diewald, Co-Chairs
Council on Children — Cathy A. Cramer, Chair
Civil Court Committee — Charlie Giudice and Tedmund Wan, Co-Chairs
Civil Rights Committee — Evan Henley, Co-Chair
Corrections & Community Reentry Committee — Karen J. Adelman and Paul A. Montuori, Co-Chairs
Criminal Courts Committee – Eric S. Fieldman and Jeffrey D. Linehan, Co-Chairs
Criminal Justice Operations Committee — James A. Aliaga, Chair
Domestic Violence Committee — Heather Lothrop and Debra Sambataro, Co-Chairs
Government Ethics & State Affairs Committee — Gabriel A. Panek and Mohammed Akber Alam, Co-Chairs
Housing Court Committee — Samuel H. Chiera and Amber L. Marshall, Co-Chairs
Immigration & Nationality Law Committee — Dorian E. Rojas and Ludivine Van Der Heyden, Co-Chairs
Insurance Law Committee — Legislative & Regulatory Watch Subcommittee Chair Dan Rabinowitz; Paul Zuckerman, Member
Council on Judicial Administration — James P. Chou, Chair
Legal Problems of the Aging Committee
LGBTQ+ Rights Committee — Jared Trujillo and Hayley Gorenberg, Co-Chairs
Litigation Committee — Cassandra Porsch, Chair
Mass Incarceration Task Force — Tess Cohen, Chair
New York City Affairs Committee – Charlotte Davidson and Stephen Louis, Co-Chairs
Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence & Digital Technologies – Jerome Walker, Lorraine McGowen and Tiffany J. Smith, Co-Chairs
Pro Bono & Legal Services Committee — Hamra Ahmad and Dara Sheinfeld, Co-Chairs
Rule of Law Task Force — Susan J. Kohlmann, Chair
Sex & Law Committee — Natalie R. Birnbaum and Susan E. Cersovsky, Co-Chairs
Social Welfare Law Committee – Catherine Frizell, Chair
State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee — Joseph M. Sanderson, Chair
Technology, Cyber and Privacy Law Committee – Jean-Marc Appolon and Karina Nad, Co-Chairs

FAQs

What did the 2026 New York State legislative session accomplish for civil legal services?

The enacted FY2027 New York State budget preserved full $102.5 million spending authority for the Interest on Lawyer Account (IOLA) Fund after the Executive Budget had proposed a reduction to $77.5 million. It also fully funded the Homeowner Protection Program at $40 million and Judiciary Civil Legal Services at $179.5 million, and adopted the Judiciary’s proposed budget in full. Several other access-to-justice priorities, including eviction legal representation and immigration legal services, received partial funding below the levels the City Bar requested.

Was IOLA funding cut in the FY2027 New York State budget?

No. Although the Executive Budget proposed cutting IOLA spending authority to $77.5 million in January 2026, both houses of the Legislature restored it to $102.5 million, and that figure held in the enacted budget. The IOLA Fund supports civil legal services providers across New York State; the funds are generated by interest on attorney trust accounts rather than taxpayer dollars.

What immigration enforcement laws did New York enact in 2026?

The FY2027 budget enacted a framework (S.9005-C/A.10005-C, Part LL) that bans 287(g) agreements between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, creates a state-law damages remedy for constitutional violations (the New York State Bivens Act), restricts state and municipal employees from assisting immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant, empowers sensitive locations such as schools and houses of worship to deny access without a judicial warrant, and prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while interacting with the public.

Which bills did the New York City Bar Association support that passed the 2026 legislative session?

As of June 2026, nine City Bar–supported bills had passed both houses of the Legislature, led by the WiFi for Homeless bill (A.1755-A/S.8026-A) requiring internet access in temporary housing statewide. Others address appellate review of police misconduct (A.673-A/S.329-A), a statewide supervised visitation program (A.65-B/S.9498), expanded domestic violence shelter access (A.3264-B/S.7738-A), commissary price caps in correctional facilities (A.2592-B/S.1692-B), restraints on pregnant incarcerated individuals (A.1670-A/S.2667-B), electronic lobbying disclosures (A.2330/S.5843), uniform consumer-debt definitions (A.10182-A/S.9760), and a commercial octopus farming ban (A.8043-C/S.7421-B). These bills have passed both houses but have not yet been signed into law; each awaits delivery to and action by Governor Hochul.

What happens next for the bills passed in the 2026 New York legislative session?

Bills that pass both houses of the New York State Legislature must be delivered to the Governor, who can sign them into law or veto them. As of June 2026, the City Bar–supported bills described above are awaiting that delivery and action. The New York City Bar Association will continue to advocate for the Governor to sign these measures and will provide updates as bills are delivered and signed.