Migrant Due Process Protection Act

Bill Number: H.R. 6349
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Immigration
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-12-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2026-02-05T09:06:28Z

AI-Generated Summary

Summary of H.R. 6349: Migrant Due Process Protection Act

Purpose

This bill aims to improve access to immigration removal proceedings by allowing non-citizens (referred to as "aliens" in the law) who are not in government custody to request that their hearings occur remotely via video or telephone conference. The goal is to ensure fair treatment without physical presence in court, promoting due process protections for migrants.

Key Provisions

Right to Virtual Proceedings: Adds a new subsection (C) to Section 240(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which governs removal proceedings.
Eligibility and Requirements: Applies only to non-citizens not held in custody by the Secretary of Homeland Security (typically Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE). Upon request, the immigration judge must grant the virtual format (video or telephone conference).
Fairness Safeguards: The judge must ensure the remote setup does not disadvantage or prejudice the non-citizen during the hearing, such as by limiting their ability to present evidence or communicate effectively.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Prior to this bill, removal proceedings under the INA generally required in-person appearances before an immigration judge, with limited options for remote participation.
This amendment introduces a mandatory right to virtual proceedings for eligible non-citizens, shifting from a discretionary process to one where the judge has no choice but to approve the request if criteria are met.
It does not apply to those in custody, preserving in-person requirements for detained individuals to maintain security and oversight.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Could reduce logistical burdens on immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security by minimizing transportation and facility needs for non-detained cases, potentially speeding up case processing and lowering costs.
On Citizens and Non-Citizens: Non-citizens not in custody may find it easier and less expensive to participate in hearings, especially if they live far from court locations or face travel barriers. U.S. citizens are indirectly affected through more efficient use of taxpayer-funded immigration resources.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could enhance the U.S. image as providing fairer treatment to migrants, potentially aiding diplomatic efforts on immigration issues.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Non-Citizens Facing Removal: Primary beneficiaries, gaining easier access to hearings without custody.
Immigration Judges and Courts: Required to accommodate virtual requests, which may require technological upgrades but could streamline workloads.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Affects non-custody cases under its purview; no changes to detained proceedings.
Legal Aid and Advocacy Groups: Organizations supporting migrants (e.g., those sponsoring the bill like representatives from immigrant rights committees) may see improved client outcomes due to reduced barriers.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: Strengthens procedural fairness in removal proceedings, aligning with requirements for impartial hearings under the INA. "Prejudice" protections help prevent challenges to decisions based on remote format flaws.
Constitutional Implications: Supports due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by making hearings more accessible, reducing risks of unequal treatment for those unable to attend in person. However, it maintains distinctions for custody cases, balancing rights with public safety.
Political Implications: Reflects ongoing debates on immigration reform, emphasizing humane treatment for non-detained migrants. Introduced by a bipartisan group but led by Democrats focused on due process, it could spark discussions on expanding virtual options amid backlogs in immigration courts (over 3 million cases pending as of recent reports).

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

Sponsor

Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]

Cosponsors (16)

Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]

Recent Actions

2025-12-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-12-02: Introduced in House
2025-12-02: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Migrant Due Process Protection Act — issued 2025-12-02 — PDF (2 pages)