Grant’s Law
- Bill Number
- H.R. 64
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-25T09:06:14Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This legislation, titled "Grant's Law" (H.R. 64), aims to strengthen immigration enforcement by requiring the mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants (referred to as "aliens unlawfully present") who are arrested for specific criminal offenses. It seeks to ensure such individuals are held in custody during legal proceedings and expedites their removal from the United States if applicable.
Key Provisions
- Mandatory Detention Requirement: Amends Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any undocumented immigrant arrested for offenses that, if convicted, would make them inadmissible to the U.S. (under INA Section 212(a)) or deportable (under INA Section 237(a)). These offenses include serious crimes like aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude (e.g., fraud or theft with intent to harm), drug trafficking, or firearms violations.
- Handling of Arrested but Unconvicted Individuals: The Secretary may temporarily release the person to local authorities for criminal proceedings but must resume custody afterward. If no conviction occurs, detention continues until immigration removal proceedings are completed.
- Shift in Authority: Replaces references to the "Attorney General" with the "Secretary of Homeland Security," centralizing control under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- Expedited Removal Proceedings: Adds a new subsection to INA Section 239(d), mandating that DHS complete removal proceedings for these detained individuals within 90 days of detention.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expansion of Detention Trigger: Current law (INA Section 236(c)) mandates detention only for those convicted of certain crimes. This bill extends it to those arrested for such offenses, if they are undocumented, broadening the scope without requiring a conviction.
- Post-Arrest Custody Rules: Introduces specific procedures for unconvicted individuals, ensuring ongoing detention for immigration purposes even if criminal charges are dropped or lead to acquittal.
- Timeline Addition: Imposes a strict 90-day deadline for removal proceedings, which does not exist in current law for this category of cases, aiming to speed up deportations.
- Authority Transfer: Formally shifts enforcement responsibilities from the Department of Justice (under the Attorney General) to DHS, reflecting modern immigration administration.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS will face increased operational demands, including more detentions, coordination with local law enforcement, and faster processing of cases, potentially straining resources like detention facilities.
- On Citizens and Communities: Could enhance public safety by keeping potentially dangerous individuals detained, reducing risks from crimes by undocumented immigrants, but may lead to overcrowding in detention centers and higher costs for taxpayers.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though stricter enforcement might affect diplomatic ties with countries of origin for deportees, particularly if mass removals occur.
- On Undocumented Immigrants: Increases the risk of prolonged detention (potentially indefinite until removal) for those arrested, even without conviction, limiting access to bail or release options.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Undocumented Immigrants: Primary group impacted, facing mandatory detention and expedited deportation for arrests related to specified crimes.
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Enforcement: Bears the brunt of new duties, including detentions and accelerated proceedings.
- Local Law Enforcement and Courts: Must coordinate with DHS for transfers and proceedings, potentially altering arrest-to-deportation workflows.
- U.S. Citizens and Legal Residents: Indirectly affected through enhanced security measures but also through fiscal and resource burdens on public systems.
- Advocacy Groups: Immigrant rights organizations may challenge the law, while law enforcement unions could support it for safety reasons.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill could lead to more litigation over detention without conviction, as it may conflict with bond hearing rights under current INA interpretations. The 90-day expedited timeline might pressure immigration judges, risking procedural errors or rushed decisions.
- Constitutional Implications: Raises potential due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment (right to fair legal proceedings), as pre-conviction detention could be seen as punitive without proof of guilt. It aligns with Congress's broad authority over immigration but might face challenges similar to past rulings on indefinite detention (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, limiting post-removal detention).
- Political Implications: Represents a push for tougher immigration policies, likely appealing to enforcement-focused lawmakers and voters concerned about crime. It could polarize debates on border security, with critics arguing it overreaches into criminal justice and promotes family separations, while supporters view it as a necessary deterrent.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (2)
Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]
Recent Actions
- 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
- Grant’s Law — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (3 pages)