Laken Riley Act

Bill Number: S. 5
Origin Chamber: Senate
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Immigration
Status: Became Law
Became Law: Public Law 119-1
Latest Action: 2025-01-29: Became Public Law No: 119-1.
Last Updated: 2026-03-12T15:02:07Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Laken Riley Act aims to strengthen immigration enforcement by requiring the detention of certain non-citizens (referred to as "aliens" in the law) who are inadmissible to the U.S. and charged with or involved in theft-related crimes or other serious offenses. It also empowers state attorneys general to sue federal officials for failing to enforce immigration detention and removal rules when such failures harm the state or its residents.

Key Provisions

Mandatory Detention for Specific Aliens:
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain non-citizens who are inadmissible under INA sections related to fraud, misrepresentation, or prior removals, and who are charged, arrested, convicted, or admit to committing burglary, theft, larceny (stealing personal property), shoplifting, assault on a law enforcement officer, or any crime causing death or serious bodily injury.
Defines these offenses using the legal meanings from the state or local jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
Directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to issue a "detainer" (a request to hold someone for federal custody) for these individuals and to take them into custody promptly if they are not already held by federal, state, or local authorities.

State Enforcement Authority:
Allows a state's attorney general (or other authorized state officer) to file lawsuits in federal court against DHS, the U.S. Attorney General, or the Secretary of State if federal actions—like releasing a non-citizen, granting bond or parole, or failing to detain or remove them—violate INA requirements and cause harm to the state or its residents.
Harm includes any negative impact, such as financial costs exceeding $100 (e.g., from public safety or resource burdens).
Courts must prioritize and speed up these lawsuits to provide injunctive relief (court orders to stop or start specific actions).
Applies to various INA sections covering inspection of arriving non-citizens, apprehension and detention, penalties for non-removal, parole grants, and post-removal detention.

Limits on Broader Injunctive Relief:
Exempts these state-initiated lawsuits from general INA restrictions that limit class-wide court orders blocking immigration enforcement.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Expands mandatory detention under INA Section 236(c) by adding a new category (E) for theft-related and violent crimes, beyond the previous focus on terrorism, drug trafficking, and other aggravated felonies.
Introduces unprecedented standing (legal right to sue) for state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration decisions directly, which was not previously available in the INA for such broad enforcement issues.
Updates references from "Attorney General" to "Secretary of Homeland Security" in parole provisions to reflect modern agency roles.
Adds new subsections across multiple INA sections (e.g., 235, 236, 243, 212, 241, 242) to enable state lawsuits, with a low threshold for proving harm ($100 financial impact).
Removes language allowing judicial review of bond or release decisions in detention contexts, narrowing options for non-citizens.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) face increased obligations to detain and process more non-citizens, potentially straining resources and leading to more litigation from states. The Department of Justice and State Department could see more expedited lawsuits challenging their decisions on parole, visas, and removals.
On Citizens: U.S. residents and states may benefit from stricter enforcement against non-citizens accused of crimes, potentially reducing related public safety risks, but could face higher costs if states pursue frequent lawsuits or if federal resources shift toward detention over other priorities.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but state lawsuits against the Secretary of State over visa policies could indirectly complicate diplomatic efforts if they lead to court-ordered restrictions on visa issuance to certain countries.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Non-Citizens (Aliens): Particularly those inadmissible and facing theft or violent crime charges, who now face mandatory detention without bond options, increasing risks of prolonged custody during immigration proceedings.
Federal Agencies: DHS, ICE, the Attorney General's office, and the State Department, which must comply with new detainer and custody rules and defend against state lawsuits.
State Governments: Attorneys general gain new tools to influence federal immigration enforcement, benefiting states seeking tougher policies but potentially increasing their legal and administrative burdens.
U.S. Citizens and Residents: Victims of crimes by non-citizens (e.g., the family of Laken Riley, after whom the act is named) and communities affected by immigration-related public safety issues; they may indirectly gain through enhanced enforcement but could see broader effects on state-federal relations.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: Shifts immigration enforcement toward mandatory actions with limited discretion, potentially leading to more challenges in federal courts over due process for detained non-citizens. The $100 harm threshold lowers barriers for lawsuits, which could result in a surge of state-federal litigation.
Constitutional Implications: Raises questions about federalism (division of powers between federal and state governments), as states gain direct enforcement roles in traditionally federal immigration matters; this could test separation of powers if courts view state standing as overreach. It may also implicate due process rights under the Fifth Amendment for non-citizens facing automatic detention.
Political Implications: Reflects a push for stricter border security and accountability for federal immigration lapses, likely in response to high-profile crimes involving non-citizens. By naming the act after a victim, it underscores a political narrative on crime and immigration, potentially influencing future debates on state involvement in national policy without altering core constitutional frameworks.

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

Sponsor

Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]

Cosponsors (53)

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK], Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND], Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL], Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS], Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY], Sen. Thune, John [R-SD], Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC], Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR], Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID], Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA], Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY], Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH], Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS], Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC], Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC], Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR], Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA], Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS], Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME], Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT], Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL], Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT], Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN], Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA], Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK], Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN], Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE], Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV], Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK], Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE], Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO], Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC], Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN], Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK], Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT], Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA], Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL], Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA], Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] and 3 more

Recent Actions

2025-01-29: Became Public Law No: 119-1.
2025-01-29: Became Public Law No: 119-1.
2025-01-29: Signed by President.
2025-01-29: Signed by President.
2025-01-23: Presented to President.
2025-01-23: Presented to President.
2025-01-22: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-01-22: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278) (Roll call 23)
2025-01-22: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278) (Roll call 23)
2025-01-22: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H285-286)
2025-01-22: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of the debate on S. 5, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
2025-01-22: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
2025-01-22: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on S. 5.
2025-01-22: Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 471 and S. 5. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 471 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of S. 5 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to commit.
2025-01-22: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 53. (consideration: CR H277-284)

Bill Versions

Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-01-24 — PDF (4 pages)
Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-01-20 — PDF (10 pages)
Laken Riley Act — issued 2025-01-07 — PDF (10 pages)