The Laken Riley Act (H.R. 29) is a bipartisan immigration enforcement bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 2025, and currently under consideration in the Senate. The legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen detention requirements for certain non-citizens accused of theft-related offenses and to expand state enforcement capabilities in immigration matters.
The bill has two primary components. First, it mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security take into custody any alien who is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to committing burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting, provided the alien is also inadmissible under specific grounds related to criminal activity, immigration violations, or national security. This provision closes a perceived loophole where individuals accused of theft-related crimes might be released pending immigration proceedings.
Second, the bill significantly expands the legal standing of state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration enforcement decisions. It amends multiple sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow state attorneys general or other authorized state officers to sue federal officials (including the Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of State) when they believe federal actions or inactions regarding alien detention, release, bond, parole, or visa issuance have caused harm to their state or residents. The bill defines harm broadly to include financial harm exceeding $100 and requires federal courts to expedite and prioritize such lawsuits.
Proponents argue the bill enhances public safety by ensuring individuals accused of theft-related offenses are detained during immigration proceedings, prevents repeat offenses, and empowers states to hold the federal government accountable for immigration enforcement failures. Critics contend the bill risks due process violations by mandating detention based solely on charges rather than convictions, could lead to racial profiling and disproportionate impacts on immigrant communities, and represents an overreach that interferes with federal executive authority over immigration policy. The legislation reflects ongoing national debates about balancing immigration enforcement, public safety, due process rights, and the appropriate role of states in federal immigration matters.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Addresses public safety concerns by ensuring individuals accused of theft-related crimes remain in custody during immigration proceedings.
+Provides states with a legal tool to challenge federal immigration enforcement decisions they believe harm their residents.
+Includes provisions for expedited court review of state-led immigration enforcement lawsuits, potentially leading to faster resolutions.
+May encourage greater federal accountability and responsiveness to state-level immigration impacts.
+Responds to constituent concerns about crime and immigration following high-profile cases.
+Offers a bipartisan framework for cooperation between federal and state authorities on immigration enforcement.
+Clarifies definitions of theft-related offenses by referencing state jurisdiction laws, promoting consistency.
+Could deter theft-related offenses among non-citizens through increased consequences.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Raises significant due process concerns by mandating federal detention based solely on charges, not convictions, violating presumption of innocence.
−Expands state standing to sue federal officials in ways that could undermine federal executive authority over immigration policy and create inconsistent enforcement nationwide.
−The low harm threshold (>$100) could lead to frivolous or politicized lawsuits that burden the federal court system.
−Risks racial profiling and disproportionate impacts on immigrant and minority communities, particularly for low-level theft offenses.
−May divert resources from more serious immigration enforcement priorities to detain individuals for minor offenses.
−Could conflict with local sanctuary policies and strain relationships between federal, state, and local law enforcement.
−Detention provisions might disproportionately affect asylum seekers and vulnerable populations who lack resources to fight charges.
−Represents an overreach that interferes with traditional federal control over immigration enforcement and foreign policy.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Enhances public safety by requiring detention of aliens charged with theft-related offenses, preventing potential repeat offenders from being released into communities.
+Closes loopholes in current immigration law that allow individuals accused of crimes to evade detention during proceedings.
+Empowers states to hold the federal government accountable for immigration enforcement failures through legal standing to sue federal officials.
+Aligns with Republican priorities of strong border security and interior enforcement of immigration laws.
+Provides a mechanism for states to address financial harms caused by federal immigration policies, even if minimal (>$100).
+Deters illegal immigration by increasing consequences for theft-related offenses among non-citizens.
+Supports victims of crime by ensuring offenders remain in custody during immigration proceedings.
+Reflects bipartisan concern over specific cases like Laken Riley's murder, where immigration enforcement gaps were perceived to exist.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May raise due process concerns by mandating detention based on charges rather than convictions, potentially infringing on liberty interests.
−Could strain federal detention resources and increase costs associated with holding more individuals pending immigration proceedings.
−Risk of overlapping jurisdiction and conflicts between state and federal authorities in immigration enforcement.
−Potential for litigation expenses for states pursuing legal actions against federal officials.
−May inadvertently harm legitimate asylum seekers or vulnerable populations if implemented broadly without sufficient safeguards.
−Could be perceived as overly punitive for minor theft offenses, conflicting with proportional justice principles.
−Detainer requirements might create tensions with local law enforcement agencies that prioritize community policing over immigration enforcement.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
Jan 07, 2025
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
Jan 07, 2025
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H61)
Jan 07, 2025
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 29, 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.
Jan 07, 2025
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Jan 07, 2025
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 29.
Jan 07, 2025
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H53-61)
![Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/c001129_200.jpg)