“Laken Riley Act” is the House of Reps’ First Bill of Session

The first bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during its new session is called the Laken Riley Act.

Section 2 of the bill, its first substantive provision, proposes to amend INA § 236(c) (8 USC § 1226(c)) to broaden the scope of mandatory detention to cover any noncitizen “charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense[.]” That’s right, no conviction required.

Section 3 of the bill concerns state lawsuits regarding detention. It would add a paragraph to INA § 235(b) (8 USC § 1225(b)) so that:

“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention and removal requirements under paragraphs (1) or (2) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief. The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this paragraph to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100. 

After that, section 3 gets boringly repetitive. But, it’s important, so let me explain. There would be amendments to INA § 236 (8 USC § 1226), INA § 243 (8 USC § 1253), INA § 212(d)(5) (8 USC § 1182(d)(5)), INA § 241(a)(2) (8 USC § 1231(a)(2)), and INA § 242(f) (8 UC § 1252(f)) to make it possible for the attorney general of a State to challenge decisions made under any of those provisions in a manner consistent with the above-cited paragraph.

Now to see what the Senate does with it.

-KitJ