Kayla Hamilton Act Mandates Secure Detention for Older Unaccompanied Children and Bans Non-Citizen Sponsors

The “Kayla Hamilton Act” is a significant overhaul of how the federal government handles unaccompanied alien children (UACs)—kids who arrive at the border without a parent or legal guardian. This bill doesn’t just tweak the rules; it fundamentally changes who can sponsor these children and how long they might be held in federal custody. Specifically, it requires the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to coordinate extensively with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Attorney General before placing any child, focusing heavily on ensuring the child shows up for hearings and is safe from traffickers.

The New Rules for Sponsorship: Who’s Out?

The biggest change impacting everyday people is the extremely tight net cast over potential sponsors. If you’re a relative, neighbor, or community member who wants to help, you’re now facing major hurdles. The bill, under Section 3, explicitly prohibits placing a child with anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). This immediately cuts off many extended family members—say, an aunt or uncle with temporary protected status or a pending asylum claim—from providing care.

Furthermore, the bill introduces a sweeping disqualification list for criminal history. If the potential sponsor or anyone else living in their home has a conviction for a long list of serious crimes (including domestic violence, child abuse, and various felonies), placement is barred. This list is so broad it covers any crime punishable by more than one year in prison. Critically, the Attorney General is given "sole discretion" to add other disqualifying crimes, which means the rules could shift without much warning, making it difficult for sponsors to know where they stand. For the average person, this means a minor mistake from years ago by a roommate or even an adult child living at home could disqualify an otherwise stable family from taking in a vulnerable child.

Secure Facilities and Mandatory Detention

For unaccompanied children aged 12 and older, the bill significantly ramps up the criteria for mandatory secure detention. Under Section 3, if DHS determines a child is a flight risk, poses a danger to the community, or has any record of gang affiliation—even an arrest or a pending charge—they must be placed in a secure facility for the duration of their immigration proceedings. The bill also requires HHS to check children 12 and older for gang tattoos or markings, and to seek criminal records from their home country's consulate, which can be a slow, complex process. This effectively eliminates the option of “release on own recognizance”—meaning a child cannot simply be released based on their promise to return for a hearing.

In practical terms, this dramatically increases the likelihood that older children will spend more time in detention facilities, even if they pose minimal risk. For example, a 16-year-old deemed a flight risk because they have no family ties in the U.S. would be confined to a secure facility, regardless of their behavior or willingness to cooperate, potentially delaying their path to a stable home.

The Fast Pass: Bypassing Public Input

Section 5 contains a provision that allows the key agencies—HHS, DHS, State, and the Attorney General—to completely skip standard administrative procedures to implement this law immediately. This means they can bypass the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to publish proposed rules and allow the public and experts to comment on them. They can also skip the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Why does this matter to you? The APA is the mechanism that ensures government rules are well-vetted and not overly burdensome. By waiving it, the agencies can roll out complex new screening and placement rules instantly, without public oversight or a chance for advocacy groups, child welfare experts, or even potential sponsors to point out practical flaws or unintended consequences. This lack of transparency and immediate implementation increases the risk of errors and rushed policy that could negatively affect children and sponsors alike.