Laken Riley Act

Bill Number: H.R. 29
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Immigration
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2025-02-10: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
Last Updated: 2026-07-11T01:53:18Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Laken Riley Act (H.R. 29) aims to strengthen immigration enforcement by requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-citizens (referred to as "aliens" in the law) who are inadmissible to the U.S. and charged with certain theft-related crimes. It also empowers state attorneys general to sue federal officials to enforce detention and removal rules, addressing perceived gaps in protecting states and residents from harms caused by non-compliance.

Key Provisions

Mandatory Detention for Theft Offenses: Amends Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require DHS to detain non-citizens who are inadmissible under specific grounds (e.g., criminal or immigration violations) and who are charged, arrested, convicted, or admit to burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. These terms are defined by the laws of the state or locality where the offense occurred.
Detainer Requirement: DHS must issue a detainer (a formal request to hold someone for federal custody) for these individuals and take them into custody if not already detained by other authorities.
State Enforcement Authority: Adds provisions across multiple INA sections (e.g., 235(b) for border inspections, 236 for apprehension and detention, 243 for penalties, 212(d)(5) for parole, and 241(a)(2) for removal-period detention) allowing a state's attorney general (or authorized officer) to file lawsuits in federal court against DHS, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State. These suits seek injunctive relief (court orders to stop or start actions) if federal violations harm the state or its residents, including financial harm over $100. Courts must expedite these cases.
Limits on Broader Injunctive Relief: Amends Section 242(f) of the INA to exclude these state-led actions from restrictions on class-action injunctions in immigration cases.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Expansion of Mandatory Detention: Previously, INA Section 236(c) required detention for serious crimes like aggravated felonies or terrorism but did not explicitly include theft offenses for inadmissible non-citizens. This adds theft charges as a trigger, broadening the scope without exceptions for release on bond or parole in these cases.
New Role for States in Federal Immigration: Introduces unprecedented standing (legal right to sue) for state officials to challenge federal immigration decisions directly, shifting some enforcement power from the federal government to states. This includes oversight of parole grants, visa restrictions, and detention during removal processes.
Lower Threshold for Harm: Defines "harm" broadly to include any state or resident impact, with a minimal financial threshold ($100+), making it easier for states to intervene compared to prior laws requiring more substantial proof of injury.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) face increased detention obligations, potentially straining resources for holding and processing more individuals. Federal officials may encounter more frequent and expedited lawsuits, leading to higher legal costs and policy disruptions.
On Citizens and Residents: States gain tools to push for stricter enforcement, potentially reducing risks from non-detained non-citizens accused of theft, but could lead to more state-federal conflicts and court backlogs affecting local communities.
On International Relations: Indirect effects on visa policies if states successfully sue to halt visas for nationals of countries non-compliant with U.S. removal orders, possibly straining diplomatic ties with those nations.
Broader Effects: May result in fewer releases of non-citizens on bond or parole, increasing detention facility usage and deportation rates for theft-related cases.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Federal Agencies: DHS, ICE, Department of Justice (Attorney General), and Department of State (for visa enforcement).
State Governments: Attorneys general and authorized officers, who gain new litigation powers to represent state interests.
U.S. Citizens and Residents: Particularly those in states alleging harm from immigration enforcement lapses, such as financial losses or public safety risks.
Non-Citizens: Inadmissible individuals charged with theft offenses, facing mandatory detention and limited release options.
Local Law Enforcement: Involved in arrests and detainers, with potential coordination burdens.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: Enhances state involvement in federal immigration enforcement, which could lead to a surge in litigation and varying enforcement across states. The low harm threshold ($100+) simplifies standing but may invite frivolous suits, challenging courts to balance efficiency with merit.
Constitutional Implications: Raises federalism concerns, as it blurs lines between federal immigration authority (exclusive under the Constitution) and state powers, potentially conflicting with the Supremacy Clause (federal law overrides state law). It also touches on due process for non-citizens by limiting discretion in detention and parole without hearings.
Political Implications: Named after Laken Riley, a victim of a crime allegedly committed by a non-citizen, the act reflects debates on border security and "sanctuary" policies. It could polarize views on immigration, empowering conservative states while facing opposition from those favoring federal discretion and immigrant rights.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]

Cosponsors (54)

Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11], Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8], Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8], Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2], Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3], Rep. Jack, Brian [R-GA-3], Rep. Bresnahan, Robert [R-PA-8], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13], Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7], Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17], Rep. Moore, Riley [R-WV-2], Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23], Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2], Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5], Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26] and 4 more

Recent Actions

2025-02-10: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
2025-02-06: Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
2025-01-08: Received in the Senate.
2025-01-07: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-01-07: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54) (Roll call 6)
2025-01-07: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54) (Roll call 6)
2025-01-07: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H61)
2025-01-07: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 29, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
2025-01-07: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
2025-01-07: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 29.
2025-01-07: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H53-61)
2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
2025-01-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-01-07 — PDF (10 pages)
Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (8 pages)
Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-02-10 — PDF (10 pages)