UPLIFT Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1680
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-11-20T09:06:47Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The UPLIFT Act aims to strengthen federal immigration enforcement by requiring state and local governments, including those in "sanctuary jurisdictions" (areas that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities), to fully assist federal agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It addresses concerns about transnational criminal groups (e.g., MS-13, Sinaloa Cartel) infiltrating communities and contributing to crime and the influx of drugs like fentanyl.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Noncompliance (Amendments to 8 U.S.C. 1373):
- Bans federal, state, or local entities and individuals from restricting cooperation with U.S. immigration laws or federal enforcement.
- Permits law enforcement to inquire about an individual's citizenship or immigration status if they are suspected of a crime, notify federal authorities of such suspicions, and respond to federal requests for information.
- Allows state and local governments to enter agreements with private entities for immigration detention facilities, sell public land for such facilities, fund their development, or receive payments for detentions.
- Provides standing for local governments to sue their state in federal court for violations that cause harm (e.g., financial losses over $100), with expedited court handling.
- Requires DHS to annually assess and report to Congress on state and local compliance by March 1, and issue compliance reports upon request from key congressional committees.
- Clarifies that the law does not mandate reporting or arresting crime victims or witnesses.
- Clarification of ICE Detainers (Amendments to 8 U.S.C. 1357(d)):
- Authorizes DHS (via Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE) to issue detainers (requests to hold someone for up to 48-96 hours for federal custody) for individuals arrested for crimes if there is probable cause they are inadmissible or deportable (e.g., via database matches, prior removal orders, or voluntary statements).
- Grants immunity from lawsuits to state/local entities and private contractors who comply with detainers, treating their actions as under federal authority; the U.S. government becomes the defendant in related suits. This does not apply to mistreatment or bad faith actions.
- Creates a private right of action: Victims (or their families) of serious crimes (e.g., murder, rape, or felonies with at least 1-year sentences) committed by noncitizens released due to ignored detainers can sue the responsible state or local government in federal or state court within 10 years. Prevailing plaintiffs receive attorneys' fees and expert costs.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands Anti-Sanctuary Measures: Builds on the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) by broadening prohibitions on restricting immigration cooperation, explicitly including private detention involvement and adding enforcement tools like annual compliance audits and victim lawsuits—features not in the original law.
- Strengthens Detainer Authority: Updates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to define "probable cause" more clearly for detainers, shortens custody transfer timelines, and introduces immunity and liability shifts, which were absent or limited before.
- Shifts Legal Burdens: Introduces new lawsuit mechanisms (local vs. state, victims vs. governments) and redirects civil suits against the federal government for compliant actions, altering how immigration-related liabilities are handled.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS and ICE gain enhanced tools for enforcement, including easier detentions and compliance monitoring, potentially increasing workload and coordination with state/local partners. State and local agencies may face financial penalties or lawsuits for noncompliance, pressuring "sanctuary" policies.
- On Citizens: Could improve public safety by facilitating removal of criminal noncitizens and reducing drug flows, but may strain community trust in law enforcement, especially in immigrant-heavy areas, leading to underreporting of crimes. Crime victims gain new legal recourse.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though stricter enforcement might affect U.S. ties with countries of origin for deported individuals (e.g., via increased repatriations), potentially straining diplomatic efforts on migration and crime.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: DHS (especially ICE) and DOJ, empowered with broader authority and reporting duties.
- State and Local Governments/Law Enforcement: Required to cooperate; "sanctuary" jurisdictions face compliance risks, audits, and lawsuits.
- Immigrants and Noncitizens: Those suspected of immigration violations (especially with criminal records) face higher detention and deportation risks.
- Crime Victims and Families: Gain ability to seek justice through lawsuits against noncompliant governments.
- Private Detention Operators: Benefit from new opportunities for contracts, land sales, and funding for facilities.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal/Constitutional: Raises federalism concerns by preempting state/local laws that limit immigration cooperation, potentially challenging the 10th Amendment (states' rights). The new standing for lawsuits and immunity provisions could increase litigation, testing due process protections for detainees. "Probable cause" expansions might invite scrutiny under the 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches/seizures) if inquiries lead to profiling.
- Political: Likely to polarize debates on immigration, appealing to enforcement advocates while drawing criticism from civil rights groups for undermining sanctuary policies that protect community-police relations. As a House-introduced bill in the 119th Congress, it reflects partisan priorities on border security and crime, with potential for amendments or judicial challenges if enacted.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (4)
Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Unhandcuffing Police to Locate and Interdict Foreign Transgressors Act — issued 2025-02-27 — PDF (10 pages)