One of the first bills President Donald Trump could introduce after taking office on Monday would significantly expand immigration detention and give states more control over immigration policy. And it has already passed one chamber of Congress with the support of a significant number of Democrats.
The bill, the Laken Riley Act, is named after a young woman who was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela last February. Her killer was sentenced to life in prison.
Riley has been the focus of Republicans, who say her death was the result of President Joe Biden's immigration policies, which allowed her to be released despite shoplifting charges. Republicans broadly support the bill, but some Democrats, upset by huge losses in 2024, Americans' dissatisfaction with the immigration situation and record border crossings under the Biden administration, are also pushing for it. Supporting or considering. 215 Democrats voted yes. Two Democratic senators, Ruben Gallego of Arizona and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, are co-sponsors of the Senate version, which could get the five additional Senate Democrats needed for passage. It is unclear whether
This bill has two main parts.
- This would require the federal government to detain all immigrants accused of theft and other related crimes. The man convicted of Riley's murder had been charged with shoplifting before Riley's death, but failed to appear in court. Supporters of the bill argue that if Riley had been taken into custody on that charge, he would still be alive.
- This would give states broad rights to sue federal immigration policies.
The bill's sponsors claim it would be a major step forward for public safety. However, if passed, the bill would strain existing immigration enforcement resources, violate immigrants' due process rights, and create a chaotic (and potentially unconstitutional) system that would allow states to determine federal immigration policy. ) situation may arise.
The Laken Riley Act would significantly expand immigration detention
Currently, federal law requires immigrants to be detained for certain serious crimes, including murder, rape, domestic violence, and some drug offenses. But beyond these categories, federal immigration officials have discretion.
In 2021, the Biden administration announced policy guidance prioritizing those who pose a threat to national security, public safety, or a “border security threat” (those who have recently entered the United States without authorization). Otherwise, the Department of Homeland Security urged individual immigration officials to exercise prosecutorial discretion, essentially leaving everyone else alone.
The rationale is that immigration authorities have limited resources to enforce what Biden sees as a key threat to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Ta.
“The federal government will never have enough money or human resources to deport all illegal aliens,” said Stephen Yale Roher, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School. “Courts do not have the ability to delve into the details of who should be prioritized for deportation.”
The Laken-Riley Act essentially reverses these enforcement priorities and mandates the detention of far more illegal immigrants.
The bill would require federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants on suspicion of theft and related crimes, such as shoplifting and robbery. Charges giving rise to mandatory detention may be brought in the United States or other countries. For example, if someone is charged with robbery in Venezuela and it comes to the attention of U.S. immigration authorities, the robbery suspect would have to be detained on that basis.
This would be a significant expansion of immigrant detention and deportation.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimates that the bill would cost $83 billion over the next three years, including 118,500 additional detention beds, 40,000 more people and 25 more deportation flights. % increase corresponds to sufficient funds. This latest estimate, which was reportedly circulated among Democratic leaders on Monday, is many times higher than ICE's previous estimate of $3.2 billion.
These immigrants would be detained even if they were not convicted and had no opportunity for a bail hearing. Currently, in the United States, it is rare for people charged with a crime, even a serious crime like murder, to be detained without a bail hearing. In the case of immigrants, forced immigration detention can actually impede their prosecution by making it logistically difficult for them to appear in criminal proceedings.
Immigrants, even undocumented, have the same right to due process as any other person in the United States, and immigration advocates say this raises serious due process concerns. claims. This means an increased risk of innocent people being detained for long periods of time. Access to lawyers who can help them win deportation cases is limited.
“Given that the Fifth Amendment is about freedom, this potential provision could be unconstitutional,” said Adriel Orozco, senior policy adviser at the American Immigration Council, an immigration think tank. There is a gender,” he said. “The implications are very far-reaching for the human condition.”
The bill would expand states' role in shaping federal immigration policy.
Another major pillar of the bill is the right for states to sue to challenge federal immigration policy regarding detention and visas, or decisions in individual immigration cases, if they can prove they have experienced economic harm in excess of $100. will be automatically given to each state.
It's a mechanism Republicans say is necessary to ensure the federal government complies with its immigration detention obligations under the law. But in practice, this means courts must rule on the merits of state claims rather than rejecting them outright, potentially leading to a flood of such cases. .
“There's going to be plenty of cases where really hostile state officials will sue to change decisions they don't like,” said Sarah Mehta, senior border policy adviser at the ACLU.
This could include, for example, objecting to visas for citizens of certain countries where Republicans have taken a hard line, such as China, he said. Not only would it have alarming implications for U.S. immigration policy, but it would also lead to the nation determining U.S. foreign policy and significantly impacting America's relationships with both adversaries and allies. It could also become open season on the decisions made by thousands of immigration judges in the course of their daily work.
Democratic states could also use the bill to challenge federal immigration policy and perhaps try to stem the tide of immigration to blue cities, a phenomenon that some state and local Democratic leaders have said Although I am dissatisfied with it). However, it is not clear on what basis they did so. I would.
Mehta said the clause allowing lawsuits is “clearly unconstitutional” and could be recognized by courts as such if the bill becomes law. He cited a 2023 lawsuit brought by the state of Texas challenging the Biden administration's immigration enforcement priorities, in which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that such policies fall under the exclusive authority of the federal government under the Constitution. He pointed out that the United States recognizes the need for a unified response to immigration. .
“Nations should not intervene in foreign policy or immigration decisions because they do not have the expertise,” Mehta said.
If the bill becomes law and survives legal scrutiny, “it would result in courts becoming the final arbiters of immigration policy,” Yale Rohr said.
Some Senate Democrats are now pushing for changes to the bill, including cutting provisions related to immigration litigation. The Senate resumed consideration of these amendments Wednesday afternoon.
If this bill passes without amendment, it will challenge each new regulation or policy memo without addressing the broader problems of America's broken immigration system, which has not seen meaningful reform since 1986. This could lead to litigation and confusion.
These issues include an under-resourced asylum system that is ill-equipped to accommodate a diverse population. Process people at our borders in a humane and orderly manner and promptly return them to their home countries if they are not eligible for protection in the United States. Lack of a legal pathway into the United States designed for current economic and humanitarian needs. Millions of illegal immigrants have established roots in the United States but have no means of obtaining legal status. And the same factors that drive people from their home countries will continue to encourage them to migrate.
The Laken-Riley method leaves all of this unresolved.
