Laken Riley Act: Mandatory Detention for Certain Theft Offenses, Boosts State Power to Sue Feds

The Laken Riley Act is a new bill that makes some significant changes to how immigration laws are enforced, particularly around detention and state authority.

Mandatory Detention for Theft

The bill mandates the detention of certain non-citizens who are charged with, arrested for, or admit to committing theft-related offenses, including burglary, larceny, and shoplifting. This means that if an individual is deemed inadmissible to the U.S. due to specific criminal or security reasons and is then accused of theft (even a minor one), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must detain them. Previously, there was more discretion. Now, detention is required, regardless of the severity of the theft. For example, someone accused of shoplifting a small item could be subject to mandatory detention under this law (SEC. 2).

States Can Sue the Feds

This is where things get interesting. The Laken Riley Act gives state attorneys general the power to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State if they believe their state (or its residents) has been "harmed" by federal immigration enforcement actions. This includes anything from the release of certain individuals to the granting of parole or bond (SEC. 3). What constitutes "harm"? According to the bill, it includes financial harm exceeding just $100 (SEC. 3). That's a pretty low bar.

Real-World Implications

• More Detentions: We're likely to see a rise in the number of detained individuals, potentially including people accused of relatively minor offenses. Think of someone who hasn't been convicted of anything, just charged, now facing mandatory detention.
• State vs. Federal Power Struggle: This bill significantly shifts power to the states. State attorneys general could use the threat of lawsuits (and the low $100 harm threshold) to pressure the federal government on immigration policy. This sets the stage for increased legal battles between states and the federal government.
• Due Process Concerns: By removing some limitations on injunctive relief, the bill makes it easier for states to potentially halt federal immigration policies through court orders. It also alters who makes parole decisions, switching authority from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security (SEC. 3).

The Big Picture

The Laken Riley Act represents a significant shift in immigration enforcement, prioritizing detention and giving states more power to challenge federal actions. While proponents might argue this strengthens enforcement, the broad definition of "theft" and the low threshold for state lawsuits raise concerns about potential overreach and increased litigation. The practical effect could be more people detained for longer periods, and more legal battles between states and the federal government over immigration policy.