Passed
263 Yea156 Nay14 Not voting1/2 required
S-5-119
Became Public Law No: 119-1.
Sponsored by Katie Britt (R-AL)
What it does
This law requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain any unauthorized immigrant — or any person who lacked proper documents at admission — who has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to committing burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. It also gives state governments the legal right to sue the federal government for injunctive relief when federal immigration decisions or failures — such as releasing a detainee, improperly granting parole, or failing to conduct required asylum interviews — cause the state or its residents harm, including financial harm exceeding $100.
Who benefits
U.S. citizens and lawful residents who are victims of theft-related crimes committed by individuals covered by the law. State governments that gain a new legal tool to challenge federal immigration enforcement decisions in court. Local communities and businesses affected by repeat-offense property crimes. Families of crime victims, including the family of Laken Riley, for whom the bill is named. Law enforcement agencies that may receive clearer federal detention guidance. States with high immigration-related fiscal costs who could now seek injunctive relief with a very low financial harm threshold ($100).
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants and individuals who lacked proper admission documents who are arrested for covered offenses — including those not yet convicted — who would face mandatory detention without individualized assessment. Immigration judges and DHS officials who would lose discretion to make case-by-case detention decisions. Individuals who may be wrongly arrested or face mistaken identity, who would nonetheless be subject to mandatory detention. Asylum seekers whose cases may be complicated by an arrest, even for minor offenses. Federal taxpayers who may bear increased detention costs. Immigration courts already facing significant backlogs, which could be further strained. Civil liberties organizations and legal advocates who represent detained individuals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government has a clear obligation to detain individuals who are unlawfully present and pose a demonstrated public safety risk, and that prior administrations repeatedly released individuals who went on to commit serious crimes — including the murder of Laken Riley by a Venezuelan national who had been previously encountered and released by DHS. They contend that mandatory detention for theft-related offenses is a narrowly targeted, proportionate response that closes a specific enforcement gap, and that the state lawsuit provision is a necessary check on executive branch non-enforcement, restoring accountability that the Supreme Court effectively removed in United States v. Texas (2023).
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory detention based solely on an arrest — not a conviction — violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since an arrest is not proof of guilt, and that Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) established that prolonged detention without adequate process raises serious constitutional concerns. They contend that the $100 harm threshold for state lawsuits is so low it could flood federal courts with litigation over routine enforcement decisions, effectively allowing states to override executive branch immigration priorities that the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas (2023) held were committed to federal discretion — undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Executive Power/Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3) are both implicated: Congress has broad authority to set detention rules, but the law significantly constrains executive enforcement discretion. The state lawsuit provision creates tension with United States v. Texas (2023), which held that states generally lack standing to challenge federal enforcement priorities, and with the anti-commandeering doctrine and Supremacy Clause. The mandatory pre-conviction detention provision raises Fifth Amendment Due Process concerns echoing Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by mandating DHS detention decisions that were previously discretionary, and state governments gain new judicial leverage over the executive branch; checks include federal court review of detention conditions and the injunctive relief standard, though the very low $100 harm threshold significantly lowers the barrier for states to challenge executive immigration decisions.
Historical precedent
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) similarly expanded mandatory detention categories for non-citizens with criminal records, and its detention provisions were upheld in Demore v. Kim (2003), though that case involved convicted individuals rather than those merely arrested.
Passed
Bill Passed (64-35)
Amendment Agreed to (75-24)
Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Agreed to (70-25)
Amendment Rejected (46-49)
Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required)