American Families United Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2366
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-26: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-23T08:05:47Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The American Families United Act aims to promote family unity in the U.S. immigration system by providing limited discretionary authority to immigration officials. This allows them to consider the impact of family separation when deciding on the removal (deportation) or inadmissibility of certain immigrants who are spouses or children of U.S. citizens.
Key Provisions
- Discretionary Authority for Immigration Officials:
- The Attorney General (who oversees immigration judges) can terminate removal proceedings, decline to order removal, allow reapplication for admission, or waive certain grounds of inadmissibility or deportability for spouses or children of U.S. citizens.
- The Secretary of Homeland Security (who leads agencies like U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has similar powers, including waiving grounds for immigration benefits, not issuing removal notices, not reinstating prior removal orders, or granting reapplication permission.
- Decisions are based on whether removal or denial of relief would cause "hardship" to the immigrant's U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or child. There is a legal presumption that separating a family counts as hardship.
- Special Rules for Widows, Widowers, and Surviving Children:
- If the U.S. citizen spouse or parent has died, discretion can still be exercised if the immigrant was not legally separated from the deceased at the time of death.
- Applications must be filed within 2 years of the citizen's death, or later if "extraordinary circumstances" (such as severe illness or legal barriers) prevented timely filing.
- Exclusions from Discretion:
- This authority does not apply to immigrants deemed inadmissible due to serious crimes (e.g., crimes involving moral turpitude, drug offenses, or certain security threats under sections 212(a)(2), (3), or (10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) or deportable for similar reasons (e.g., aggravated felonies, security threats, or unlawful presence under section 237(a)(2), (4), or (6)).
- Motions to Reopen Cases:
- Immigrants can file motions to reopen or reconsider denied petitions, applications, or removal orders if the outcome might have been different under this Act.
- Motions must be filed within 2 years of the Act's enactment, or later with proof of extraordinary circumstances.
- Rule of Construction:
- All discretion must be exercised on a case-by-case basis and does not expand or limit existing immigration enforcement powers.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends sections 240(c)(4) and 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to introduce new family-focused discretion, which was not previously available in this targeted way.
- Adds a presumption of hardship from family separation, shifting the balance toward leniency in family unity cases.
- Creates a 2-year window for reopening old cases, providing retroactive relief for past decisions that did not consider these factors.
- Explicitly excludes serious criminal cases, maintaining strict enforcement for public safety threats while expanding options for others.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) may see increased workloads for reviewing hardship claims and motions to reopen, potentially requiring more resources for case-by-case decisions. This could lead to more consistent family unity considerations in enforcement but might slow processing times.
- On Citizens and Immigrants: U.S. citizen families could benefit from keeping spouses or children in the country, reducing emotional and financial strain from separations. Eligible immigrants gain pathways to stay or adjust status, though exclusions limit this to non-criminal cases.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic family ties rather than broader visa policies or foreign affairs. It may indirectly improve the U.S. image as family-friendly for immigrants from other countries.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Immigrants: Primarily non-citizen spouses and children of U.S. citizens facing removal or inadmissibility, especially those without criminal histories.
- U.S. Citizen Families: Spouses, parents, and children who could experience hardship from family separation.
- Government Entities: DHS (for benefit applications and enforcement), DOJ/immigration courts (for removal proceedings), and related agencies handling case reviews.
- Advocacy Groups: Immigrant rights organizations may support more families, while enforcement-focused groups could oppose perceived leniency.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the INA's humanitarian elements by codifying family unity as a factor in discretion, potentially reducing litigation over arbitrary removals. The case-by-case limit and criminal exclusions align with due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, avoiding blanket amnesty.
- Constitutional: Supports equal protection and family integrity principles without infringing on executive immigration powers, as it preserves discretionary authority.
- Political: Could appeal to bipartisan support for family values but face debate over enforcement priorities; as an introduced bill (H.R. 2366, 119th Congress), its passage would signal a shift toward compassionate immigration policy amid ongoing debates on border security.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16]
Cosponsors (41)
Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ-8], Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8], Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3], Rep. Vasquez, Gabe [D-NM-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-26: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-26: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-26: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- American Families United Act — issued 2025-03-26 — PDF (8 pages)