S5119th Congress

Laken Riley Act

Sponsored By: Senator Katie Britt

Became Law

Summary

This law requires DHS to detain certain non-U.S. nationals charged with burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault on an officer, or crimes causing death or serious bodily injury. It also creates a new route for states to sue federal officials over immigration detention, parole, removal, inspection, and visa decisions that harm state interests.

Show full summary
  • Non-U.S. nationals charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admitting to those crimes and who are unlawfully present or lack required admission documents are designated for detainer-based custody. Definitions of burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault, and serious bodily injury follow the law where the act occurred.
  • State governments can file for injunctive relief against federal decisions or alleged failures that cause harm to the state or its residents, including financial harm greater than $100. Those suits may seek to block or compel actions on releases, parole limits, visa issuance, asylum inspections, and failures to detain.
  • DHS must issue detainers and promptly take custody if an eligible individual is not already held by federal, state, or local authorities. The act alters detention provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act to add these conduct-based disqualifications.

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

3 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 1 costs, 1 mixed.

DHS must detain some accused noncitizens

The law requires DHS to hold certain noncitizens in custody. It applies to people inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(A), 212(a)(6)(C), or 212(a)(7) who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit acts that are burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime causing death or serious injury. Those terms use the meaning in the place where the act happened. DHS must issue a detainer and, if no other officials hold the person, take custody quickly. Effective upon enactment.

States can sue over immigration decisions

State attorneys general, or other authorized state officers, can sue federal officials for injunctions on certain immigration rules. Covered issues include parole limits (INA 212(d)(5)), detention during the removal period (241(a)(2)), detention or removal under 235(b)(1) or (2), release, bond, or parole decisions under 236, and visa stoppages under 243(d). A state or its residents count as harmed with losses over $100. Courts must move these cases fast. The usual injunction limit does not apply to cases under 235(b)(3), 236(e) or (f), and 241(a)(2)(B). The law also tightens wording in section 236(e) about release.

DHS now decides immigration parole

The law names the Secretary of Homeland Security as the official for parole under INA 212(d)(5). It replaces "Attorney General" with "Secretary of Homeland Security" in that section. This is an administrative shift in who makes parole decisions. Effective upon enactment.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Katie Britt

AL • R

Cosponsors

  • Cynthia Lummis

    WY • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Thune

    SD • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Thomas Tillis

    NC • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Tom Cotton

    AR • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Mike Crapo

    ID • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Chuck Grassley

    IA • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

    KY • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Bernie Moreno

    OH • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Jerry Moran

    KS • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Lindsey Graham

    SC • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Ted Budd

    NC • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Boozman

    AR • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Kennedy

    LA • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Roger Marshall

    KS • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Susan Collins

    ME • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Steve Daines

    MT • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Cornyn

    TX • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Rick Scott

    FL • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Tim Sheehy

    MT • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Jim Banks

    IN • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Joni Ernst

    IA • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Markwayne Mullin

    OK • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Bill Hagerty

    TN • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Pete Ricketts

    NE • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Shelley Capito

    WV • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Lisa Murkowski

    AK • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Deb Fischer

    NE • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Josh Hawley

    MO • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Tim Scott

    SC • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Todd Young

    IN • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Marsha Blackburn

    TN • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Dan Sullivan

    AK • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • John Curtis

    UT • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Cindy Hyde-Smith

    MS • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Mike Rounds

    SD • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Ted Cruz

    TX • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Bill Cassidy

    LA • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]

    FL • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • David McCormick

    PA • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Rand Paul

    KY • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Sen. Vance, J. D. [R-OH]

    OH • R

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • John Fetterman

    PA • D

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • Ruben Gallego

    AZ • D

    Sponsored 1/8/2025

  • James Risch

    ID • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Eric Schmitt

    MO • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • James Lankford

    OK • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Kevin Cramer

    ND • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Tommy Tuberville

    AL • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Hoeven

    ND • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Mike Lee

    UT • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Ron Johnson

    WI • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • John Barrasso

    WY • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

  • Roger Wicker

    MS • R

    Sponsored 1/6/2025

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 554 • No: 245

house vote • 1/22/2025

On Passage

Yes: 263 • No: 156

senate vote • 1/20/2025

On Passage of the Bill S. 5

Yes: 64 • No: 35

senate vote • 1/17/2025

On the Cloture Motion S. 5

Yes: 61 • No: 35

senate vote • 1/13/2025

On the Motion to Proceed S. 5

Yes: 82 • No: 10

senate vote • 1/9/2025

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed S. 5

Yes: 84 • No: 9

View on Congress.gov

Related Bills

Back to Legislation

Take It Personal

Get Your Personalized Policy View

Create a free account to save research, track policy impacts, and unlock your personalized versions of these pages.

Already have an account? Sign in