Bill Explainer
Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Laken Riley Act
SENATE · S 5 119 CONGRESS

Laken Riley Act

INTRODUCED
January 06, 2025
POLICY AREA
Immigration
STATUS
Became Public Law No: 119-1.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗

Bill Summary

The Laken Riley Act (S.5) is an immigration enforcement bill that amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand mandatory detention requirements for certain aliens and grant state attorneys general standing to sue federal officials over immigration enforcement decisions. The bill has two main components: First, Section 2 amends INA §236(c) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible on certain grounds and who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to committing burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury. It also requires DHS to issue detainers for such aliens and take custody if not otherwise detained. Second, Sections 3(a)-(f) amend various provisions of the INA to grant state attorneys general (or other authorized state officers) standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, or Secretary of State in federal district court for alleged violations of immigration detention and removal requirements, bond/parole decisions, visa restrictions, and other immigration enforcement actions that allegedly harm the state or its residents, defined as including financial harm exceeding $100. These amendments also require courts to expedite such cases and limit certain injunctive relief in related proceedings. The bill is named after Laken Riley, a nursing student murdered by an undocumented immigrant in 2024, and aims to strengthen immigration enforcement by expanding mandatory detention and empowering states to challenge federal immigration policies through litigation.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Expands mandatory detention without adequate due process protections, potentially violating constitutional rights of immigrants
−Grants overly broad standing to state attorneys general to sue over minimal harms ($100+), encouraging politically motivated lawsuits that disrupt federal immigration policy
−Could lead to racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement targeting immigrant communities
−Diverts resources from more serious criminal enforcement to low-level offenses like shoplifting
−Undermines federal authority over immigration by allowing states to challenge federal enforcement decisions
−May create confusion and inconsistency in immigration enforcement across different jurisdictions
−Potentially violates supremsacy clause by allowing states to dictate federal immigration enforcement
−Could result in costly litigation that taxpayers must fund
−Ignores root causes of migration and focuses exclusively on punitive measures
−May discourage cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Strengthens public safety by requiring detention of immigrants charged with theft and other crimes
+Closes loopholes that allow dangerous criminals to be released into communities
+Empowers states to hold federal government accountable for immigration enforcement failures
+Provides a mechanism for states to seek redress when federal policies harm their residents
+Honors the memory of Laken Riley and similar victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants
+Increases deterrence against criminal activity among immigrant populations
+Reduces burden on local law enforcement by ensuring federal custody of criminal aliens
+Protects communities from repeat offenders who might otherwise be released
+Aligns with Trump administration's hardline immigration enforcement priorities
+Creates consistent nationwide standards for detention of criminal aliens
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May raise due process concerns by expanding mandatory detention without individualized hearings
−Could strain DHS resources and detention capacity with increased detainee population
−Risk of overreach that might inadvertently detain individuals for minor offenses
−Potential for litigation costs if states frequently exercise new standing provisions
−Possible unintended consequences on legal immigration processes and visa programs
−May create tension between federal and state authorities over immigration enforcement
−Could be perceived as overly harsh for non-violent property offenses like shoplifting
−Detainer requirements might conflict with local sanctuary policies creating jurisdictional disputes
−Financial burden of increased detention costs may fall on federal taxpayers
−Effectiveness depends on proper implementation and coordination with state and local authorities

History

Jan 29, 2025
Became Public Law No: 119-1.
Jan 29, 2025
Became Public Law No: 119-1.
Jan 29, 2025
Signed by President.
Jan 29, 2025
Signed by President.
Jan 23, 2025
Presented to President.
Jan 23, 2025
Presented to President.
Jan 22, 2025
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Jan 22, 2025
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278)
Jan 22, 2025
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278)
Jan 22, 2025
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H285-286)
Jan 22, 2025
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.
Jan 22, 2025
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Jan 22, 2025
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on S. 5.
Jan 22, 2025
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.
Jan 22, 2025
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 53. (consideration: CR H277-284)
Jan 22, 2025
Rule H. Res. 53 passed House.
Jan 21, 2025
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 53 Reported to House. 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.
Jan 21, 2025
Held at the desk.
Jan 21, 2025
Received in the House.
Jan 21, 2025
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
SPONSOR
Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
RELATED BILLS
S 149 — Public Safety First Act HR 29 — Laken Riley Act HRES 53 — Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes.
SUBJECTS
Border security and unlawful immigration Civil actions and liability Crimes against property Criminal investigation, prosecution, interrogation Detention of persons Immigration status and procedures Intergovernmental relations Refugees, asylum, displaced persons State and local government operations Violent crime Visas and passports