Halo Act Proposes 5-Year Prison Sentence for Standing Within 25 Feet of Immigration Officers After Verbal Warning

The “Halo Act” proposes creating a new federal crime that carries a stiff penalty—up to five years in federal prison—for interfering with federal immigration enforcement activities (Sec. 2). This isn’t just about physical assault; the bill specifically targets three types of obstruction: approaching too closely after being warned off, threatening the officer, or “harassing” them. It all kicks off the moment an individual knows, or reasonably should know, they are dealing with a federal immigration enforcement officer performing a lawful duty.

The 25-Foot Exclusion Zone

This bill introduces a very specific, and potentially very restrictive, boundary. Once a federal immigration officer gives a verbal warning not to approach, it becomes a federal crime to knowingly violate that warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the officer with the intent to impede or interfere with their duties (Sec. 2). Think about what 25 feet looks like—it’s roughly the length of two large parking spaces. For the average person, this means if you are observing an enforcement action, perhaps recording it on your phone from a safe distance, that officer can unilaterally establish a no-go zone around them just by saying so. If you ignore that warning, even if you are just trying to document the scene, you’ve potentially committed a felony punishable by five years in prison.

The Problem with “Harass”

Beyond the physical boundary, the bill also criminalizes “harassing” the officer. The definition of “harass” here is key: knowingly engaging in conduct directed at the officer that intentionally causes that officer “substantial emotional distress” and serves no legitimate purpose (Sec. 2). This is where things get vague. While we all agree officers shouldn't be physically threatened, “substantial emotional distress” is a highly subjective standard, relying entirely on the officer’s personal perception. If an advocate or a concerned bystander starts loudly questioning the officer’s actions or using strong language, could that be interpreted as causing “substantial emotional distress”? This provision could be used to silence criticism or observation, creating a significant chilling effect on the public’s right to monitor government actions, which is a big deal for journalists, activists, and even just regular folks who want to hold officials accountable.

Who Feels This Change?

This legislation primarily impacts anyone who might be near an immigration enforcement action. For federal officers, the benefit is clear: increased physical safety and a powerful new tool to ensure smooth operations without interference. For the rest of us, especially those who work in advocacy, journalism, or simply live in communities where enforcement is common, the costs are high. The threat of a five-year prison sentence for crossing an invisible line, or saying something that causes an officer distress, could make people think twice before documenting or questioning an action. This is a significant expansion of federal power, giving officers the authority to essentially create a protected bubble around themselves instantly, backed by serious criminal penalties, which raises real questions about transparency and public oversight.