Immigration Court Due Process Protection Act of 2025

Bill Number: H.R. 6521
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Immigration
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-12-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2026-02-06T09:06:35Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Immigration Court Due Process Protection Act of 2025 aims to protect individuals attending immigration court hearings by limiting the ability of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to arrest or detain them at or near court facilities. This is intended to ensure fair access to immigration proceedings without fear of enforcement actions, except in specific circumstances.

Key Provisions

Short Title (Section 1): The bill is titled the "Immigration Court Due Process Protection Act of 2025."
Restrictions on Enforcement at Immigration Courts (Section 2):
DHS officers or agents cannot arrest or detain anyone physically present at an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration court facility while they are attending or participating in a hearing, unless there is a judicial warrant (a court-issued order authorizing the action).
DHS cannot arrest or detain individuals immediately upon their arrival or departure from such a facility if the purpose is to attend or participate in a hearing, again except with a judicial warrant.
These restrictions apply to individuals whose immigration cases are ongoing (e.g., before an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals) and have not resulted in a final removal order (deportation decision). They also cover cases during appeals or motions to challenge a removal order.
Exception: DHS can act if necessary to prevent an immediate act of violence or a specific, clear threat to life, public safety, or national security.
For scheduled appointments or check-ins with DHS (e.g., routine reporting requirements), arrests or detentions are prohibited unless:
A senior DHS supervisor (at least at the senior field management level) provides written approval specifying the legal reason for the action.
The action is reported to the DHS Inspector General (an internal oversight office) within 30 days and included in a broader compliance report.
Oversight (Section 3): One year after the bill's effective date, and annually thereafter, the DHS Inspector General must submit a report to Congress evaluating compliance. The report includes:
Number of attempted and completed arrests under the bill's provisions.
Legal basis for each arrest.
Status of the individual's immigration case at the time of arrest.
Steps taken by the DHS Secretary (e.g., training or guidance) to ensure officers follow the rules.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces new limits on DHS enforcement actions that were not previously in place. Under current law, DHS can arrest or detain individuals at immigration courts or check-ins without a warrant in many situations, as long as it aligns with immigration enforcement priorities. The bill overrides this by requiring judicial warrants for court-related arrests, supervisory approval for check-ins, and mandatory reporting/oversight, promoting greater procedural safeguards during immigration proceedings.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: DHS enforcement operations at immigration courts and check-ins would be restricted, potentially reducing on-site arrests and requiring more internal approvals and training. The DHS Inspector General would face new annual reporting duties, increasing accountability and administrative workload.
On Citizens and Non-Citizens: Non-citizens in immigration proceedings (e.g., asylum seekers or those facing deportation) would gain protections against surprise arrests, which could encourage attendance at hearings and reduce fear of the process. U.S. citizens are not directly affected, as the bill targets immigration contexts.
On International Relations: By emphasizing due process in immigration courts, the bill could enhance the U.S. reputation for fair treatment of migrants, potentially improving diplomatic relations with countries whose nationals are involved in U.S. immigration cases, though direct international impacts are limited.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Officers, agents, and leadership, who must adhere to new restrictions and oversight.
Individuals in Immigration Proceedings: Primarily non-citizens attending EOIR hearings or DHS check-ins, who benefit from arrest protections.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): Immigration courts and judges, whose proceedings could see higher attendance due to reduced enforcement fears.
Congress: Receives annual oversight reports to monitor implementation.
DHS Inspector General: Responsible for evaluating and reporting on compliance.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: The bill strengthens procedural protections in immigration law by mandating warrants and exceptions only for clear threats, aligning with requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act but adding specificity to prevent routine enforcement at courts.
Constitutional Implications: It supports due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (which guarantees fair legal procedures, especially for non-citizens in removal proceedings), by reducing the risk of arrests that could deter participation in hearings and undermine access to justice.
Political Implications: Introduced by a group of Democratic representatives, the bill reflects efforts to reform immigration enforcement practices amid debates over border security and humane treatment, potentially influencing broader discussions on immigration policy without altering core deportation authority.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]

Cosponsors (36)

Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Mannion, John W. [D-NY-22], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Rivas, Luz M. [D-CA-29], Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

Recent Actions

2025-12-09: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-12-09: Introduced in House
2025-12-09: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Immigration Court Due Process Protection Act of 2025 — issued 2025-12-09 — PDF (4 pages)