PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 4, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10105 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10105 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10105 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10105 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would limit prices at commissaries—the shops inside immigration detention facilities. Essential items could cost no more than 5% above the provider’s purchase cost, and other items no more than 35% above that cost. It would also prohibit extra transaction fees, kickbacks, and revenue sharing involving commissary services.
The sale price of an essential item offered for sale in a commissary at an immigration detention facility shall be limited to an amount not to exceed a 5-percent markup above the amount paid to a vendor for that item.
The sale price of a nonessential item offered for sale in a commissary at an immigration detention facility shall be limited to an amount not to exceed a 35-percent markup above the amount paid to a vendor for that item.
(1) Fees No sales transaction of a commissary at an immigration detention facility shall incur additional fees, including service fees, commissions, or any similar fee. (2) No kickbacks or revenue sharing No agency or contractor providing a commissary service at an immigration detention facility may receive kickbacks or share revenue with respect to such service.
The proposed law would be called the Stop ICE Price Gouging Act.
This Act may be cited as the Stop ICE Price Gouging Act.
The bill would cover facilities whose primary purpose is holding people under immigration laws. Essential items would include anything needed for hygiene, health, dignity, and communication, with examples ranging from menstrual products and toiletries to basic underwear, socks, writing supplies, and stamps. All other items would be classified as nonessential.
The term immigration detention facility means any facility with the primary purpose of detaining individuals under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a))).
The term essential item means any item needed for hygiene, health, dignity, and communication, including menstrual products, soap, shampoo, moisturizing cream, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, toilet paper, tissues, diapers, baby wipes, laundry supplies, basic undergarments and socks, writing paper, writing implements, envelopes, and stamps.
The term nonessential item means any item that is not an essential item.
The price caps would use the provider’s net purchase cost: discounts, credits, allowances, refunds, and other price reductions would have to be subtracted before calculating the permitted increase above cost.
For the purpose of this subsection, the amount paid to a vendor for an item is the amount paid for the acquisition of that item, less any discount, credit, allowance, refund, or other price reduction.
When the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement determines that someone paid more than the permitted price, the Director would have to ensure that the commissary provider refunds the excess. For someone transferred or released, the provider would have to make all reasonable efforts to issue the refund.
In any case in which the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement determines that a detained individual has been charged a sale price for an item in excess of the limitation under subsection (a), the Director shall ensure that the agency or contractor providing the commissary service shall refund an amount to the individual equal to the amount in excess or, in the case of an individual who is transferred to a facility or released, make all reasonable efforts to refund such amount.
Overcharges that cannot be refunded because a person was transferred or removed from the facility would go through the Department of Homeland Security into a separate Treasury account called the Detainee Welfare Fund. That money could be used only for electronics, recreational or educational items, and other items or programs benefiting detainees. It could not pay for compliance with detention standards or other immigration-law requirements.
In the case that the amount charged in excess of the limitation under subsection (a) is unable to be refunded to the appropriate individual due to transfer or removal from the detention facility, such amount shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and thereafter deposited into a separate account in the Treasury to be known as the Detainee Welfare Fund to be used solely for electronics, recreational or educational items, and other items and programs that benefit detainees. Such amount may not be used to comply with the standards for detention or other requirements under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a))).
The immigration enforcement Director would have to address violations but could choose the appropriate response. Options would include corrective action plans and refunds. For repeated and willful contractor violations, options would also include withholding payments, ending the contract, and making the contractor ineligible for future contracts.
The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall address violations of this Act in a manner the Director determines appropriate, including imposing a corrective action plan, requiring refunds, or, in the case of repeated and willful violations by contractors, withholding payments, terminating the contract, and making the contractor ineligible for future contracts.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General would have to audit compliance, investigate alleged violations, and refer credible allegations to the immigration enforcement Director. The bill defines that Director’s role as the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through the Director.
The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall conduct audits to ensure compliance with this Act, investigate alleged violations, and refer credible allegations to the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The term Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement means the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Starting 90 days after enactment and every 90 days afterward, the Director would have to report to the House Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Reports would cover essential-item purchase costs and markups, the average nonessential-item markup, each violation involving those items, and written compliance certification for each facility meeting the requirements.
Beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on— (1) the cost of acquiring essential items and the percentage of markup; (2) the average percentage of markup with respect to nonessential items; (3) a list of each violation involving essential and nonessential items; and (4) a written certification of compliance with the requirements of this Act with respect to each detention facility meeting such requirements.
The bill would preserve state laws that set lower limits on commissary markups than the proposed federal limits.
The provisions of this Act shall not be construed to preempt any provision of State law that imposes a limitation on a markup of items for sale in a commissary at an immigration detention facility that is less than the limitation under subsection (a).
The bill would not authorize charging for items that federal or state law, detention standards, or contracts already require facilities to provide free.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize charging for any item that is required to be provided without charge under Federal or State law, standards for detention, or contracts.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 4, 2026, records introduction in the House on August 13, referral that day to the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, and referral to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement on August 14.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-04T08:06:33Z.
2026-08-13: Introduced in House
2026-08-13: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2026-08-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Formal earmark status cannot be established for other versions or accompanying materials from this bundle.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Protections for the policy’s intended population do not alone constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 4, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI