PolicyBrief
H.R. 9070
119th CongressMay 29th 2026
OPEN Act
IN COMMITTEE

The OPEN Act mandates increased transparency and accountability for immigration enforcement by granting Congress unrestricted access to detention facilities, requiring public reporting of officer misconduct, establishing detainee grievance processes, and limiting the use of force and administrative warrants for arrests.

Joe Neguse
D

Joe Neguse

Representative

CO-2

LEGISLATION

OPEN Act Mandates Judicial Warrants and Unannounced Congressional Inspections for Immigration Detention Facilities

The OPEN Act is a major overhaul of how immigration enforcement works on the ground, shifting the power balance from administrative agencies back toward the courts and Congress. At its core, the bill bans ICE and CBP from arresting or detaining anyone without a warrant signed by a judge—effectively ending the era of 'administrative warrants' for arrests (Sec. 6). It also forces the doors open at every detention site in the country, granting any Member of Congress unrestricted, unannounced access to inspect facilities, talk to staff, and interview detainees privately. If a facility tries to block a congressperson, the agency heads have 72 hours to explain themselves to the House and Senate (Sec. 3).

The End of the 'Paperwork' Arrest

For years, immigration arrests have often relied on administrative warrants—essentially paperwork signed by an immigration officer rather than a judge. This bill flips the script. By requiring a judicial warrant for arrests, the law treats these stops more like a standard criminal procedure. If an officer breaks these rules, any evidence they find can be tossed out of court, potentially ending the removal case entirely (Sec. 6). For the person on the street or the officer in the field, this means the legal bar for an arrest just got a lot higher, requiring a magistrate's sign-off before the handcuffs come out.

Accountability on the Clock

The bill sets strict 'real-world' deadlines for how people are treated once they are in custody. Within five hours of being detained, the government must let a person call their family. Within twelve hours, they must have access to a lawyer or a faith leader (Sec. 4). This isn't just a suggestion; the bill mandates that facilities provide the actual phones and space to make this happen. For families, this means the 'black hole' period where a loved one disappears into the system is legally capped at five hours. Furthermore, if an officer is found to have used excessive force—defined as anything from unapproved chokeholds to unnecessary physical takedowns—they are permanently banned from supervising or transporting detainees ever again (Sec. 3).

Logistics and the 'Fine Print' of Transfers

Moving people between facilities is often where things go wrong, and this bill treats those transfers like a regulated logistics operation. It mandates seatbelts for everyone, bathroom breaks every two hours, and climate-controlled vehicles. It even requires that if someone is in restraints, the officers must physically help them eat or drink if they can't do it themselves (Sec. 4). While these are humanitarian wins, they add massive layers of red tape for the Department of Homeland Security and the private contractors running these sites. If a transport van doesn't have a working AC or misses a bathroom stop, a supervisor has 24 hours to file a formal report to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

New Rules for Local Warehouses

Finally, the bill puts a leash on 'pop-up' detention centers. ICE can no longer just flip a warehouse or an old jail into a detention center overnight. Before a contract is signed, there must be an independent audit published 30 days in advance. The facility also has to prove it can provide medical care and legal access that meets federal standards. While this prevents sub-standard 'black sites,' the bill does include a 'Supremacy' clause (Sec. 5) that allows the federal government to bypass state health rules if they conflict with federal immigration law—a detail that could lead to legal tug-of-wars between state governors and Washington over how these facilities are actually run.