SHIELD Act

Bill Number

H.R. 3101

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-03-27T08:06:35Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The SHIELD Act (Securing Help for Immigrants through Education and Legal Development Act) aims to improve access to legal representation for individuals facing deportation by authorizing federal grants. These grants support the recruitment, training, and development of staff and infrastructure for legal services, addressing the lack of government-funded counsel in immigration proceedings—unlike in criminal cases where such representation is a right.

Key Provisions

• Definitions: Establishes terms like "service area" (geographic jurisdiction of funded activities), "State" (includes U.S. territories and D.C.), "unit of local government" (as defined in existing crime control law), and "individual facing deportation" (those in specific immigration removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, such as detention or hearings).
• Sense of Congress (Sec. 3): Outlines findings on the inequities in immigration proceedings, including no right to free counsel (even for children), high unrepresentation rates (e.g., 80% of detained individuals), severe consequences of deportation (e.g., family separation, danger in home countries), proven benefits of legal help (e.g., 3.5–10.5 times higher success rates), disproportionate impact on Black immigrants, successes of local/state funding programs, and the need for federal action like universal representation.
• Grant Program (Sec. 4): The Attorney General, through the Director of the Office of Access to Justice (part of the Department of Justice), awards competitive grants to eligible entities:
• Eligible recipients: States or local governments funding immigration legal services; nonprofits, community-based organizations, or educational institutions providing or training for such services.
• Allowed uses: Workforce development (e.g., recruiting/training lawyers, social workers, navigators); technical assistance (e.g., skills/language training, leadership development); coordination of services; retention strategies (e.g., addressing burnout); diversity hiring; building infrastructure in underserved areas; and physical/technological resources.
• Grants can be subawarded or contracted out; 4-year terms, renewable; must supplement (not replace) existing funds.
• Conditions: Recipients certify compliant uses and submit annual reports on services, impacts, expenditures, outcomes, and unmet needs.
• Administration (Sec. 5): The Director sets rules for grants, prioritizes objectives like building a skilled workforce for independent defense, scaling national infrastructure, supporting local leaders, and addressing representation gaps. Implementation must be independent from federal immigration enforcement priorities.
• Reporting and Accountability (Sec. 6): Grantees submit annual effectiveness reports; includes audits by the DOJ Inspector General to prevent waste/fraud, priority for clean-audit applicants, restrictions on nonprofits with offshore accounts or excessive executive pay (with disclosure requirements), limits on conference spending (max $100,000 without approval), and annual DOJ certifications to Congress.
• Funding (Sec. 7): Authorizes $100 million annually for fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces a new federal grant program under the Department of Justice, which does not previously exist at this scale for immigration legal defense infrastructure. It builds on local/state efforts but adds federal support without altering core immigration laws (e.g., no new right to counsel). It supplements existing programs like those under the Office of Access to Justice, emphasizing workforce and capacity-building rather than direct case funding.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: The Department of Justice gains responsibilities for grant administration, reporting, and audits, potentially increasing workload but promoting efficiency in immigration proceedings. Local/state governments with existing programs may expand services, reducing long-term deportation-related costs (e.g., detention, family separations).
• Citizens and Immigrants: Individuals facing deportation (often low-income or detained) could gain better access to high-quality, culturally appropriate legal help, improving outcomes like bond release or relief from removal. This may keep more families/communities intact, reduce systemic inequities (e.g., for racial minorities), and lower societal costs from unrepresented cases.
• International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though enhanced due process could improve U.S. image on human rights in immigration, potentially aiding diplomatic efforts on migration issues.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Individuals Facing Deportation: Primary beneficiaries, including detained or nondetained immigrants (e.g., children, Black immigrants) who gain from increased representation.
• Legal Service Providers: Nonprofits, community organizations, educational institutions, and government units that receive grants for staffing, training, and infrastructure.
• State and Local Governments: Those funding immigration services may access federal support to scale programs.
• Department of Justice and Federal Agencies: Administers grants independently; Inspector General conducts oversight.
• Broader Community: Families, employers, and communities impacted by deportations, plus taxpayers funding the program.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal/Constitutional: Strengthens due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (fair hearing in administrative proceedings) by addressing unrepresentation gaps in immigration courts, without creating a universal right to counsel. Aligns with recommendations from bodies like the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable on access to justice.
• Political: Supports progressive immigration reform by endorsing local innovations and calling for broader federal action (e.g., referencing the Fairness to Freedom Act). Could spark debate on federal spending for non-enforcement immigration priorities, emphasizing equity and reducing racial disparities in the system. As an authorization bill, it requires future appropriations, leaving funding uncertain.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]

Cosponsors (17)

Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-04-30: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-30: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Securing Help for Immigrants through Education and Legal Development Act — issued 2025-04-30 — PDF (17 pages)