ICE Out of Our Faces Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7363
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-05: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-30T08:06:31Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "ICE Out of Our Faces Act" (H.R. 7363) aims to protect privacy and civil liberties by prohibiting the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies by immigration enforcement officers within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It targets U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to prevent the automated identification or tracking of individuals based on physical or voice characteristics.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Biometric surveillance system: Software that uses facial recognition or other biometric methods (like gait analysis or voice patterns) in real-time or on recordings/photos to identify or track people.
- Covered immigration officer: Anyone authorized for immigration enforcement, including employees, contractors, or local deputies under ICE, CBP, or section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which allows local law enforcement to assist federal immigration duties).
- Facial recognition: Automated processes to identify individuals or infer emotions/activities from facial features.
- Other biometric recognition: Includes gait (walking style), voice, or distance-based traits, but excludes fingerprints or palm prints taken up close.
- Voice recognition technology: Automated identification based on voice characteristics.
- Prohibition on Use: It is illegal for covered officers to acquire, possess, access, or use any biometric surveillance system or data derived from one operated by others, anywhere in the U.S.
- Data Deletion Requirement: All biometric data collected by covered officers (even before the law's enactment) must be deleted within 30 days of the law taking effect.
- Judicial and Enforcement Measures:
- Evidence from violations is inadmissible in most federal investigations or proceedings, except those alleging a violation of this law.
- Private right of action: Affected individuals can sue the federal government for violations, seeking actual damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctions (court orders to stop the activity).
- State enforcement: State attorneys general or similar officials can sue on behalf of residents as parens patriae (acting as "parent of the nation" to protect public interests) if state residents are harmed.
- Penalties for officers include retraining, suspension, termination, or other discipline, following due process (fair legal procedures).
- Rule of Construction: The law does not override federal, state, or local laws unless they directly conflict with these restrictions.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill introduces a federal ban on biometric surveillance specifically for DHS immigration enforcement, which was not previously prohibited at the national level. Prior to this, ICE and CBP could use such technologies without statutory limits, relying on internal policies. It also mandates data deletion and creates new civil enforcement tools, shifting from voluntary guidelines to enforceable prohibitions. The law applies retroactively to existing data but carves out exceptions for enforcement of the ban itself.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS components like ICE and CBP would lose access to biometric tools, potentially slowing immigration enforcement, border screening, or investigations. This could require agencies to adopt alternative methods, increasing costs or reducing efficiency in tracking undocumented individuals or threats.
- On Citizens and Residents: Enhances privacy protections, particularly for immigrants, minorities, or protesters who might be disproportionately targeted. It reduces risks of misidentification (e.g., false matches leading to wrongful detention) and surveillance overreach, but could limit tools for public safety in immigration contexts.
- On International Relations: May improve the U.S. image as a leader in privacy rights, aligning with global concerns over surveillance (e.g., in EU data protection laws), but could strain cooperation with countries relying on U.S. tech for joint border security.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- DHS Agencies (ICE and CBP): Directly restricted in operations; must delete data and face potential lawsuits or internal penalties.
- Immigrants and Undocumented Individuals: Primary beneficiaries through reduced surveillance risks, but possibly less protected if enforcement tools are weakened.
- Civil Liberties and Privacy Advocates: Groups like the ACLU, who likely support the bill for curbing government overreach.
- State and Local Governments: Attorneys general can enforce the law; local officers under 287(g) agreements are limited.
- Technology Providers and Contractors: Cannot sell or support biometric systems to covered officers, impacting the surveillance tech industry.
- General Public: Indirectly affected via broader privacy precedents, especially in communities near borders or with high immigrant populations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Establishes a strong enforcement framework with private lawsuits and state involvement, which could lead to increased litigation against the federal government. The inadmissibility rule strengthens evidentiary barriers in immigration cases, potentially invalidating past evidence.
- Constitutional Implications: Aligns with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches (biometric scans as potential "searches" without warrants) and due process requirements for penalties. It raises questions about balancing national security with individual privacy rights, possibly inviting court challenges on whether the ban unduly hampers executive enforcement powers.
- Political Implications: Highlights tensions between immigration enforcement and civil rights, with potential bipartisan appeal on privacy but opposition from security hawks. As an introduced bill (not yet law), it signals growing congressional scrutiny of DHS tech use amid debates on AI ethics and surveillance reform.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Cosponsors (10)
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3], Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3]
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-05: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
- 2026-02-04: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2026-02-04: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2026-02-04: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-04: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- ICE Out of Our Faces Act — issued 2026-02-04 — PDF (7 pages)