The Laken Riley Act mandates the detention of illegal aliens who commit theft, and allows state attorneys general to sue the federal government for failing to enforce immigration laws.
Mike Collins
Representative
GA-10
The Laken Riley Act mandates the detention of illegal aliens who commit theft, burglary, larceny, or shoplifting. It empowers state attorneys general to sue the Department of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State for failing to enforce immigration laws, including those related to detention and removal. The bill defines grounds for legal action and requires expedited court proceedings.
| Party | Total Votes | Yes | No | Did Not Vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Democrat | 215 | 48 | 159 | 8 |
Republican | 219 | 216 | 0 | 3 |
Laken Riley Act: Mandatory Detention for Immigrants Charged with Theft, States Can Sue Feds
The Laken Riley Act mandates that any immigrant charged with theft-related crimes – burglary, larceny, shoplifting, you name it – must be detained by federal authorities. It also lets state attorneys general sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the State Department if they believe federal immigration enforcement is lacking.
Holding Cells and Courtrooms
This bill changes the game in two major ways. First, it significantly expands mandatory detention. Under current law, detention decisions often consider individual circumstances. This bill removes that discretion for anyone charged with theft, regardless of how minor the alleged offense might be. Think someone accused of pocketing a candy bar – they'd be detained, no questions asked, until their case is resolved. The bill specifically points to Section 2, amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue detainers and take these individuals into custody.
Second, it gives state AGs a lot more power to challenge the federal government on immigration. If a state AG believes the feds are falling short on enforcement – like not detaining someone they should, or granting parole when they shouldn't – they can sue. And the bar for proving "harm" to the state is set pretty low: just $100 in financial damages. Section 3 of the bill is where this power is laid out. It gives the court the ability to grant injunctive relief.
Real-World Ripple Effects
Imagine a small business owner in Texas who suspects an undocumented employee of stealing a small amount of cash. Under this law, that employee must be detained, even before a conviction. The business owner might face staffing shortages, and the employee, even if innocent, could lose their job and livelihood while awaiting trial.
Or consider a state AG with strong anti-immigration views. They could potentially file numerous lawsuits against DHS, claiming even minor enforcement lapses cause financial harm to the state. This could clog up the courts and create even more friction between states and the federal government. The bill's broad definition of "theft", which varies by state, could lead to very different outcomes for people in similar situations, depending on where they live.
The Big Picture
The Laken Riley Act ties directly into existing immigration laws, specifically those dealing with inadmissibility, detention, and removal. But it significantly tightens the screws, making detention mandatory in a wider range of cases and giving states more leverage over federal enforcement. The potential challenges are clear: increased pressure on detention facilities, a rise in legal battles between states and the feds, and the risk of individuals being detained for relatively minor offenses. The very low threshold for states to sue ($100) could open the floodgates for legal challenges, many of which could be politically motivated.