The Republican-led House and Senate are pushing forward with legislation aimed at shifting specific federal immigration enforcement duties to state governments, indicating a potentially more stringent stance on immigration detention practices.

The House recently passed the Laken Riley Act with a vote of 216 Republicans in favor, along with support from 48 Democrats. This bill is currently being reviewed by the Senate, where it has garnered unexpected backing from a few Democratic Senators. Notably, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Arizona’s Ruben Gallego have co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill, which will be discussed further on Monday.

Among the bill’s significant provisions is a requirement for immigration officers to detain undocumented immigrants accused of minor thefts involving $100 or more. Furthermore, the legislation would greatly expand the powers of state attorneys general concerning federal immigration policies, giving them the authority to sue the federal government to enforce the detention of certain immigrants and to lobby the State Department to deny visas to countries that refuse to accept deported individuals.

The eight-page bill is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was tragically murdered last year in Athens, Georgia, by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant who was unlawfully in the U.S. and had previously been detained by Border Patrol but subsequently released. Ibarra is now serving a life sentence without parole for the murder of Riley.

Let’s explore the details of the bill.

Mandatory Detention for Immigrants Charged with Theft

If this bill becomes law under President Trump, it would reshape the federal government’s policy regarding undocumented immigrants accused of theft valued at $100 or more, which could include instances of shoplifting. The bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that individuals charged with theft are detained, compelling immigration officials to arrest and hold these individuals.

Currently, immigration authorities typically focus on detaining individuals with violent criminal records. This new legislation would eliminate that discretion. “This bill complicates the daily operations of ICE,” commented Jason Houser, who served as chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023. He pointed out that the federal budget currently accommodates around 41,000 individuals in immigration detention, but this bill could raise that figure by an additional 20,000, diverting essential resources from apprehending the most dangerous offenders. “If this legislation passes, we might see fewer violent criminals in detention compared to today,” he added.

Moreover, the bill would impact legal immigration procedures. It mandates that Customs and Border Protection officers classify individuals as “inadmissible” to the U.S. if they are arrested for or admit to theft or shoplifting, meaning that even those holding valid visas might be removed from the country without a chance to defend themselves against such charges in court.

Empowering State Attorneys General to Challenge Federal Detention Practices

This legislation would enable state attorneys general to take legal action against the federal government regarding its treatment of undocumented individuals in custody. State officials could seek court orders requiring immigration agents to locate and detain individuals who had previously been released from detention. “It allows state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief against the Secretary of Homeland Security if federal immigration actions—such as parole or breaches of detention protocols—adversely affect that state or its residents,” explained Rep. Mike Collins, the Georgia Republican who sponsored the bill in the House.

Traditionally, the courts have granted significant authority to the President and federal agencies over immigration matters. This bill seeks to redistribute that power, allowing state attorneys general to contest federal immigration rulings. Critics argue that many supporters of the bill have not fully considered the broad consequences of this shift. “We believe it is unwise to undermine the principle of federal supremacy by granting state attorneys general authority over decisions made by individual ICE and CBP officers as well as those made by the Secretary of State,” remarked Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

State Authorities Could Influence Visa Issuance Policies

Additionally, the proposed legislation would allow states to exert influence over U.S. foreign policy. One reason some undocumented immigrants remain in the U.S. is that their home countries refuse to accept them back. Nations such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, India, Russia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are currently uncooperative regarding deportees from the U.S.

The bill’s supporters aim to empower state attorneys general to file lawsuits against the State Department to halt the issuance of U.S. visas to countries that do not comply with deportations of their nationals. “This essentially places the immigration and visa processes in the hands of the courts and state authorities,” stated Reichlin-Melnick.

Bipartisan Support for the Bill

The House passed the legislation with unanimous support from Republican members and 48 out of 215 Democrats. In the Senate, a 60-vote threshold is required to start debate, and 31 Democrats joined all Senate Republicans to move the bill forward. Only nine Democrats opposed it. In addition to Senators Fetterman and Gallego co-sponsoring the bill, several other Democratic Senators, including Mark Kelly from Arizona, Gary Peters from Michigan, Jacky Rosen from Nevada, and Elissa Slotkin from Michigan, have also indicated their support for the legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that he voted to advance the bill to facilitate debate and possible amendments aimed at modifying its provisions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune is responsible for determining which amendments will be considered before the final vote. If the bill reaches the White House as it stands, President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to sign it into law upon taking office.