Judiciary Committee
January 24, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Carolyn Bosn | Bills Heard: 5 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB99: Restrict use of restrictive housing and double bunking in Nebraska correctional system
Introduced by: Sen. Ashlei Spivey | Testimony: 6 proponents, 2 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator Spivey's LB99 would limit restrictive housing to 15 consecutive days and ban double bunking in Nebraska prisons, drawing sharp debate over inmate safety and rehabilitation.
Why it matters: Nebraska holds some inmates in restrictive housing for years—nine individuals spent over 2,000 days in isolation. Research shows even 15 days causes lasting psychological damage. The bill affects how the state treats its most vulnerable incarcerated population and whether they can successfully reintegrate into communities.
What they're saying:
Proponents: "The act of isolation is violence in itself," testified Jason Witmer, formerly incarcerated. Experts cited brain imaging showing isolation causes impairments similar to traumatic brain injury. Two deaths from involuntary double bunking since 2017 demonstrate the practice's danger. Evidence-based alternatives like peer support programs already work in Nebraska.
Opponents: Director Rob Jeffreys argued 15 days is too short to complete programming and sends the wrong message about consequences. He said the 10-hour daily out-of-cell requirement is physically impossible given 130-year-old facility design. Restrictive housing is necessary to separate dangerous inmates; other states that limited it saw increases in protective management placements.
By the numbers: 155 people currently in restrictive housing (down 20% from 2024). 42 individuals spent over 180 days in isolation last year. 95 are there for serious acts of violence; 42 for threats of violence.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator Spivey committed to working with the Department of Corrections on fiscal note and implementation details before advancing the bill.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer, Sen. Terrell McKinney Skeptical: Sen. Bob Hallstrom Unclear: Sen. Tanya Storer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB174: Limit wage garnishment for medical debt
Introduced by: Sen. Jason Prokop | Testimony: 10 proponents, 2 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator Prokop's LB174 would reduce wage garnishment for medical debt, giving Nebraska families breathing room to pay basic expenses while repaying healthcare costs.
Why it matters: Over 11% of Nebraska adults carry medical debt—higher than the national average. For low-income families already struggling with rent and food, losing 25% of wages to garnishment can be devastating. The bill recognizes that medical debt is fundamentally different from other consumer debt because people don't choose to get sick.
What they're saying:
Proponents: Medical students and community advocates shared stories of families forced to choose between paying debt and buying groceries. One woman lost 25% of her paycheck and couldn't feed her three children for two weeks. A Creighton student's research found Nebraska has the highest per-capita rate of medical debt lawsuits in the country, with collection agencies suing for amounts under $200. AARP noted that 10% of adults age 50-64 have medical debt, and excessive garnishment pushes families into bankruptcy.
Opponents: Collectors argued that longer repayment periods increase interest costs, ultimately harming debtors. They warned the bill will hurt rural hospitals and small providers already struggling financially. Practical concerns: many lawsuits combine medical and non-medical debt, making it difficult to separate which portion should be garnished at the lower rate.
By the numbers: 11.6% of Nebraska adults have medical debt. Median medical debt: $1,500. Over $760,000 in fines, fees, and restitution imposed on youth alone from 2019-2022.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator Prokop indicated willingness to work with stakeholders on clarifying language around medical debt identification.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer, Sen. Terrell McKinney Skeptical: Sen. Tanya Storer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB136: Require garnishment service on corporate registered agents
Introduced by: Sen. Rick Holdcroft | Testimony: 3 proponents, 2 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator Holdcroft's LB136 would protect Nebraska businesses from unexpected liability by requiring garnishment summons be served on corporate registered agents, not random retail locations.
Why it matters: Employers can be held liable for employee debts if garnishment interrogatories aren't returned within 10 days—a deadline that's nearly impossible to meet when documents are served at a Casey's front desk instead of corporate headquarters. This creates unfair liability for businesses trying to comply with the law.
What they're saying:
Proponents: A labor attorney cited a real case where his client faced a $5 million judgment over a 2-day late filing. Another recent case involved a company's truck being impounded. Neighboring states allow 30 days; Nebraska's 10-day deadline is an outlier. Financial institutions already have this protection. Registered agent information is public and designed for legal service.
Opponents: Collectors argued improper service is already prohibited by statute, so the bill doesn't solve the real problem. They worried that limiting service only to registered agents removes flexibility—registered agents can be unavailable, and small businesses often prefer service at headquarters or on officers. One attorney noted that registered agents themselves find garnishment summons inconvenient and time-consuming.
By the numbers: Nebraska is the only state with a 10-day deadline; neighbors allow 30 days.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator DeBoer, who has carried this bill for 6 years, expressed frustration that non-legislative solutions haven't worked and asked opponents to identify acceptable service recipients. Senator Holdcroft indicated willingness to work with stakeholders on language.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer Skeptical: Sen. Terrell McKinney Unclear: Sen. Bob Hallstrom
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB70: Provide for second parent adoption
Introduced by: Sen. Wendy DeBoer | Testimony: 4 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator DeBoer's LB70 would allow second parent adoption for children with one legal parent, recognizing family structures that already exist but lack legal protection.
Why it matters: Children in same-sex couples, multigenerational households, and other non-traditional families often have two parents in fact but only one in law. Without legal recognition, the non-legal parent cannot provide health insurance, make medical decisions, or pass inheritance to the child. The bill provides stability and permanency for vulnerable children.
What they're saying:
Proponents: Shilo Jorgensen, biological mother of Landon, testified she cannot cover her own biological son on her health insurance because Nebraska law doesn't recognize her as his parent. The ACLU noted adoption provides protections that wills and powers of attorney cannot. Senator DeBoer emphasized the court retains full authority to approve or reject adoptions and that the bill simply makes legal what is already true in fact.
Opponents: The Catholic Conference warned the bill creates conditions for instability by giving permanent parental rights to someone who may not have made a commitment of permanency. Marion Miner provided a hypothetical: if a second parent leaves and the sole parent remarries, the new spouse cannot adopt without the ex-partner's consent—giving a stranger leverage over the marriage. She suggested existing temporary delegation of parental authority (§30-2604) already solves the problem.
By the numbers: Both testifiers in support involved biological relationships; both involved children already living with two parents.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator DeBoer indicated willingness to work with opponents on narrowing bill to biological relationships only, though she noted other scenarios exist where non-biological second parents have established parent-child relationships.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer, Sen. Terrell McKinney Skeptical: Sen. Bob Hallstrom, Sen. Tanya Storer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB65: Eliminate court fees and costs for juveniles in juvenile court system
Introduced by: Sen. Wendy DeBoer | Testimony: 6 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Senator DeBoer's LB65 would eliminate court fees for juveniles, removing a barrier to rehabilitation and record sealing that disproportionately harms poor and rural youth.
Why it matters: Court fees prevent juveniles from getting records sealed, extending system involvement and creating permanent barriers to employment and housing. Youth with court-imposed fees are 23% more likely to recidivate. The bill addresses stark disparities: some rural counties assess fees 9 times more often than larger counties, and 90% of fees are charged in rural Nebraska.
What they're saying:
Proponents: Formerly system-involved youth testified that fees burdened their families and didn't teach responsibility—mentorship and stability did. A young adult navigator described youth unable to afford community service requirements, creating impossible barriers. National experts cited research showing court costs increase recidivism and that other states have eliminated them. Crucially, actual data shows only $271,000 in fees collected from 2019-2022, contradicting the fiscal note's $1 million estimate.
Opponents: One testifier argued fees teach responsibility and that youth should pay when they start working. But proponents noted many juveniles are too young to work legally.
By the numbers: $760,000 in fines, fees, and restitution imposed on youth 2019-2022; only $271,000 actually collected. Youth with court fees are 23% more likely to recidivate. 90% of fees charged in rural counties.
What's next: No vote taken. Senator DeBoer clarified the bill eliminates only administrative fees, not fines (penalties) or restitution (victim compensation). She indicated willingness to discuss community service as alternative accountability measure.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Wendy DeBoer, Sen. Terrell McKinney Skeptical: Sen. Bob Hallstrom Unclear: Sen. Jared Storm
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
The committee heard five bills on January 24, 2025. The hearing lasted well into the evening. Committee Chair Bosn noted at the beginning that written position comments must be submitted by 8 a.m. on the day of hearing via the Legislature's website, and that testifiers can submit written comments or testify in person, but not both. The committee used a 3-minute light system for all testifiers. No votes were taken on any bills during this hearing. All bills will require further work before advancement.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.