fbpx

U.S. House Passes the Laken Riley Act

The U.S. House passed the Laken Riley Act, which will require the detention of undocumented migrants charged with crimes like theft or burglary.

Fisayo Okare

Jan 08, 2025

East Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, DC, against blue sky and clouds. Photo: Tada Images via Shutterstock

Share Button WhatsApp Share Button X Share Button Facebook Share Button Linkedin Share Button Nextdoor

The U.S. House passed a Republican-led bill on Tuesday that would require the detention of undocumented migrants charged with crimes like theft or burglary. The bill, known as the “Laken Riley Act,” which is named after a Georgia student whose convicted killer was identified as an undocumented migrant, is the first piece of legislation passed in the new Congress. 

The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) in March 2024, and would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under the Department of Homeland Security, to issue detainers and take custody of undocumented migrants who are involved in theft-related offenses, including shoplifting. 

The House approved the bill on Tuesday with a 264-159 vote, with support from 48 Democrats. In the previous Congress, 37 Democrats backed a similar measure. 

Immigration News, Curated
Sign up to get our curation of news, insights on big stories, job announcements, and events happening in immigration.

Next steps: The bill faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. The Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, will take up the bill on Friday. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate and one senator is delaying their swearing in, so eight Democrats must join Republicans to advance the legislation.

Some Democrats, like Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, have voiced support, telling CNN in a statement that the legislation is needed to prevent tragedies like Riley’s death. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, are still considering their stance. Republicans argue the bipartisan support reflects broader consensus on immigration reform.

Implications: Legal experts, including Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, say the legislation raises serious constitutional issues. “If signed into law, a single state AG could ask a single federal judge to block all visas from India and China,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The legislation, if signed into law, will enable any state’s attorney general to go to a federal judge to get a court order requiring the State Department to stop issuing all visas to countries that reject deportations — which is the case for India and China, Reichlin-Melnick states

In response to the house passing the Laken Riley act, Kerri Talbot, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, said in a statement that the bill creates “a pipeline for mass detention, not a sensible solution for public safety. This is political gamesmanship at its worst, planting a trap for lawmakers by exploiting a tragedy.”

“This bill weaponizes the justice system to incarcerate immigrants for minor infractions, empowers extremists to rewrite immigration policy, and tears apart families who have long called this country home. Any legislator who supports this bill is complicit in perpetuating Trump’s plans for mass cruelty and eroding trust in our nation as a place of refuge and opportunity,” Talbot added. 

The statement also highlights what the Immigration Hub feels the bill would do, including: empower AGs to target immigrants and mandate mass detention via “frivolous” lawsuits; create a pipeline to indefinite detention for “petty” offenses; and put long-settled immigrants such as DACA recipients and TPS holders at high risk of family separation.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told NBC News that the bill “is not a well-constructed piece of legislation,” and it could complicate current immigration law. “I think it’s going to make the immigration system written as is, much, much, much more complicated, byzantine and confusing because of this new right it provides for attorneys general to litigate detainment cases in court,” Murphy said. 

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), representing the west and east sides of Manhattan, voted against the bill. Nadler wrote of his decision that “two things can be true: Laken Riley’s murder was a terrible tragedy,” and “attempting to honor her memory by passing a bill that requires mandatory detention without criminal charges — and without access to a bond or bail hearing — is a blatant assault on American values. It violates the principles of due process, individual liberty, and the presumption of innocence that defines our nation.”

Here is a breakdown of how each member of the House voted.


This summary was featured in Documented’s Early Arrival newsletter. You can subscribe to receive it in your inbox three times per week here.

Fisayo Okare

Fisayo writes Documented’s "Early Arrival" newsletter and "Our City" column. She is an award-winning multimedia journalist, and earned an MSc. in journalism from Columbia University and a BSc. in Mass Communication from Pan-Atlantic University.

@fisvyo

SEE MORE STORIES

Early Arrival Newsletter

Receive a roundup of immigration and policy news from New York, Washington, and nationwide in your inbox 3x per week.