Access to Counsel Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 391
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S595-596)
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-10T11:03:25Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Access to Counsel Act of 2025 aims to ensure that specific individuals undergoing inspections at U.S. ports of entry or during deferred inspections (a follow-up review process) have clear access to legal counsel and support from interested parties. This clarifies and strengthens their rights during interactions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), focusing on due process without expanding government obligations beyond these scenarios.
Key Provisions
- Access During Inspections: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must provide a "meaningful opportunity" for covered individuals to consult with counsel (a licensed attorney or accredited representative) and an "interested party" (such as a relative, visa sponsor, or connected organization) by phone or other means. This must occur no later than 1 hour after secondary inspection (a more detailed review beyond initial screening) begins and as needed throughout the process, including deferred inspections.
- Advocacy Role: Counsel and interested parties can advocate for the individual by sharing information, documents, or evidence with immigration officers. DHS must accommodate in-person appearances at the inspection site whenever feasible.
- Special Protections for Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs): LPRs (green card holders) cannot be asked to sign a form abandoning their status (Form I-407) during secondary or deferred inspection without first having a chance to consult counsel. An exception allows acceptance of the form if the LPR knowingly waives this right in writing.
- Definitions:
- Covered Individual: Includes U.S. nationals, returning LPRs from temporary trips abroad, immigrants or nonimmigrants with valid visas, refugees, returning asylees (those granted asylum protection), and those approved for parole (temporary permission to enter or stay).
- Counsel: A state-barred attorney in good standing or an individual accredited by the government to represent people in immigration cases.
- Interested Party: Relatives, visa petitioners/sponsors (or their agents), or U.S.-based people/organizations with a genuine connection to the individual.
- Implementation: Changes take effect 180 days after the bill becomes law.
- Savings Clause: The act does not reduce any existing rights to counsel, including government-appointed counsel in removal proceedings or other legal protections in place before enactment.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which governs inspections at ports of entry, by adding a new subsection (e). Previously, the INA did not explicitly require timely access to counsel or interested parties during secondary or deferred inspections for these groups, though general due process rights exist.
- Introduces mandatory timelines (e.g., within 1 hour) and advocacy permissions, shifting from discretionary practices to enforceable requirements.
- Adds safeguards against status abandonment for LPRs, ensuring informed decisions rather than potentially coerced ones under pressure.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS and CBP will need to train staff, update procedures, and possibly provide resources (e.g., phone access) at ports of entry, which could slightly delay inspections but promote compliance with legal standards and reduce future lawsuits.
- On Citizens and Individuals: Covered individuals, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents, gain stronger protections against errors or overreach during border encounters, potentially preventing wrongful detentions or status losses. This may build trust in the immigration system for travelers and visa holders.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but it could improve perceptions of U.S. border fairness among allies and international travelers, aligning practices with human rights norms without altering visa or entry policies.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Covered Individuals: U.S. nationals, LPRs, visa holders (immigrant and nonimmigrant), refugees, asylees, and parolees who face secondary or deferred inspections.
- Government Entities: DHS and CBP, responsible for implementing access protocols.
- Legal and Support Providers: Attorneys, accredited representatives, family members, visa sponsors, and advocacy organizations that assist during inspections.
- Broader Immigration Community: Groups focused on migrant rights, who may benefit from reduced procedural injustices at borders.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces due process requirements under the INA by mandating counsel access in inspection phases, potentially serving as a basis for challenging denials in court. It preserves existing counsel rights in formal removal hearings (deportation proceedings) under INA sections 240 and 292.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Fifth Amendment protections against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process, particularly for U.S. nationals and LPRs at borders where rights can be limited but not eliminated. Does not create a right to government-provided (free) counsel but ensures opportunities for private consultation.
- Political: Introduced by a bipartisan group but primarily Democratic senators, it addresses concerns about border enforcement practices without funding new programs. Could spark debate on balancing security with individual rights, influencing future immigration reform discussions.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (18)
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE], Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV], Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA], Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV], Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM], Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ], Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA], Sen. Alsobrooks, Angela D. [D-MD]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S595-596)
- 2025-02-04: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Access to Counsel Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-04 — PDF (6 pages)