PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Laken Riley Act
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.
Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a
decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;
failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;
failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;
violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or
failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
House roll call 6 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
House roll call 6 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H61)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 29, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 29.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H53-61)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.
Source last updated: Jul 27, 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.29 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.29 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.29 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.29 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 Placed on Calendar Senate · 2025-02-10 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.
The proposed Laken Riley Act, in the February 10, 2025 Senate calendar version, would require federal immigration officials to hold certain non-U.S. citizens who are ineligible to enter the country and are arrested for, charged with, convicted of, or admit to burglary or theft, including shoplifting. A conviction would not be required; the offenses would be defined by the law where the acts occurred, and the text does not explain the immigration eligibility rules it references. The bill would also let state attorneys general or other authorized state officials seek federal court orders over specified immigration detention, release, deportation, and visa decisions or failures to follow requirements, including limits on temporary permission to enter or remain in the country. States would have to allege harm to themselves or their residents, which could include financial harm exceeding $100.
2025-02-10: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
(E) (i) is inadmissible under paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or (7) of section 212(a), and (ii) is 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,
the terms burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting have the meaning given such terms in the jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E) and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.
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.
alleging an action or decision by the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien that harms such State or its residents
alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d)
alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit
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.
Section 2 would add a detention category requiring both inadmissibility under specified immigration provisions and an arrest, charge, conviction, or specified admission involving burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. A conviction would not be required.
(E) (i) is inadmissible under paragraph (6)(A), (6)(C), or (7) of section 212(a), and (ii) is 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
The meanings of the four covered offenses would come from the jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
the terms burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting have the meaning given such terms in the jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would have to issue a detainer for a person in the new category. If federal, state, or local officials were not already detaining that person, the Secretary would have to take custody effectively and promptly.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E) and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.
Section 3(a) would allow a state attorney general or another authorized state officer to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security over alleged violations of specified detention and removal requirements for applicants for admission, when the violation harms the state or its residents.
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.
Section 3(b) would allow those state officials to sue over a federal decision under Immigration and Nationality Act section 236 to release a noncitizen or grant bond or immigration parole, if it harms the state or its residents. The suit could seek a court order against the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.
The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging an action or decision by the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Attorney General or 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.
Section 3(b) would also remove the words “or release” from existing section 236(e) and replace “grant, revocation, or denial” with “revocation or denial.” The supplied text does not reproduce the surrounding statutory language.
in subsection (e)— (A) by striking or release; and (B) by striking grant, revocation, or denial and insert revocation or denial
Section 3(c) would allow authorized state officials to sue the Secretary of State over an alleged failure to stop granting visas as required by existing section 243(d), if the failure harms the state or its residents. The requested remedy would be a court order.
The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State 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.
Section 3(d) would replace references to the Attorney General with the Secretary of Homeland Security in section 212(d)(5). It would also allow authorized state officials to sue that Secretary over alleged violations of the requirement that immigration parole be granted individually and only for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, when the violation harms the state or its residents.
Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is amended— (1) by striking Attorney General each place it appears and inserting Secretary of Homeland Security
The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, 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.
Section 3(e) would allow authorized state officials to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security over an alleged violation of the detention requirement during the removal period, if it harms the state or its residents.
by striking During the removal period, and inserting the following: (A) In general During the removal period,
The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention requirement under subparagraph (A) 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.
Each of the five new state enforcement provisions would require courts to prioritize and expedite these cases as much as practicable. Each recognizes harm that includes financial harm exceeding $100; the language does not limit qualifying harm to financial losses.
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.
The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this subsection to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this subsection, 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.
The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this subparagraph to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this subparagraph, 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.
Section 3(f) would make the existing restriction in section 242(f)(1) inapplicable to actions brought under section 235(b)(3), section 236(e) or (f), or section 241(a)(2)(B). The source does not reproduce that existing restriction.
Limit on injunctive relief Section 242(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(f)) is amended by adding at the end following: (3) Certain actions Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an action brought pursuant to section 235(b)(3), subsections (e) or (f) of section 236, or section 241(a)(2)(B).
The supplied July 27, 2026 source snapshot records House passage by 264–159 on January 7, 2025, receipt in the Senate on January 8, and placement on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 10 on February 10, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-27T16:30:22Z.
2025-01-07: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
2025-01-08: Received in the Senate.
2025-02-10: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Placed on Calendar Senate · 2025-02-10. 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 was identified in the supplied complete February 10, 2025 text version. 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 supplied complete February 10, 2025 text version. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials or resolve formal disclosure status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit or preferential carve-out was identified in the supplied complete February 10, 2025 text version. Generally available state enforcement remedies do not alone constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 27, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI