Halo Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7846
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-13T08:06:42Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Halo Act (H.R. 7846) aims to protect federal immigration enforcement officers by creating a new federal crime for individuals who intentionally obstruct, threaten, or harass them during the performance of their duties. It seeks to ensure that these officers can carry out immigration law enforcement without interference.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Federal immigration enforcement officer: Any U.S. government officer, agent, or employee authorized to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute violations of federal immigration laws (e.g., personnel from agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection).
- Harass: Knowingly engaging in repeated actions targeted at an officer that cause significant emotional distress and serve no valid purpose.
- Offense: It is illegal for a person to approach or stay within 25 feet of a federal immigration enforcement officer after receiving a verbal warning not to do so, if the person knows or should reasonably know the officer is performing a lawful duty, and the approach is intended to:
- Impede or interfere with the officer's ability to perform that duty.
- Threaten the officer with physical harm.
- Harass the officer.
- Penalty: Violators face a fine (as determined under federal law), imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.
The bill adds this as a new section (Sec. 1522) to Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which deals with obstruction of justice, and updates the chapter's table of contents accordingly.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a specific, targeted criminal offense for obstructing immigration enforcement, which did not previously exist in this form under federal law.
- It builds on general obstruction statutes (e.g., those in Chapter 73) by focusing narrowly on immigration contexts, including a 25-foot buffer zone and a verbal warning requirement as prerequisites for the crime.
- No changes to existing immigration enforcement powers; it solely adds penalties for interference.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Enhances safety and operational efficiency for agencies like the Department of Homeland Security by deterring interference, potentially reducing risks to officers during arrests, investigations, or border activities.
- On Citizens: May limit public interactions near immigration enforcement scenes, affecting protesters, bystanders, or family members who could face prosecution for getting too close after a warning; could lead to more arrests in contentious situations.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly influence perceptions of U.S. immigration enforcement rigor, possibly straining relations with countries critical of U.S. border policies.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Immigration Enforcement Officers and Agencies: Primary beneficiaries, gaining legal protections against interference.
- General Public and Activists: Potentially restricted in their ability to observe, protest, or assist near enforcement actions without risking criminal charges.
- Immigration Advocacy Groups: May face challenges in monitoring or challenging enforcement, as members could be prosecuted under the new law.
- Courts and Law Enforcement: Increased workload for federal prosecutors and judges handling obstruction cases tied to immigration.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Establishes clear criteria (e.g., intent, warning, proximity) to define the offense, reducing ambiguity in prosecutions but potentially leading to disputes over what constitutes "intent" or "harassment" in court.
- Constitutional Implications: Could raise First Amendment concerns regarding free speech, assembly, and the right to record or observe public officials, as the 25-foot buffer might be seen as restricting expressive activities; however, the law's focus on intent to impede or threaten may help it withstand challenges by balancing officer safety with rights.
- Political Implications: Aligns with efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement amid debates on border security, likely appealing to supporters of stricter policies while drawing criticism from those viewing it as overly punitive toward dissenters. As an introduced bill (referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2026), its passage would depend on congressional dynamics in the 119th Congress.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6]
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2], Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]
Recent Actions
- 2026-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-03-05: Introduced in House
- 2026-03-05: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Halo Act — issued 2026-03-05 — PDF (3 pages)