States gain power to sue feds over immigrant detention decisions
H.R. 29 — Laken Riley Act · Filed by Mike Collins (R-GA) · 54 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 3, 2025 · Passed chamber
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain and take custody of non-citizens charged with theft, burglary, larceny, or shoplifting offenses. It also grants state attorneys general standing to sue the federal government in federal court if they believe DHS has violated these detention requirements or released such aliens, with courts required to expedite these cases. The bill lowers the threshold for proving harm to a state to any financial harm exceeding $100.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to mandate detention of non-citizens charged with theft-related offenses and to create a private right of action for state attorneys general to enforce that mandate through federal litigation. It is primarily an immigration enforcement measure, not a commemorative or vanity bill, despite bearing the name of a crime victim.
What the text implies
- The $100 financial-harm threshold is extraordinarily low and may enable states to sue over trivial or speculative economic impacts, potentially flooding federal courts with immigration litigation and creating unpredictable enforcement outcomes.
- By granting state attorneys general standing to sue over federal immigration detention and release decisions, the bill creates a mechanism for states to override or constrain federal immigration policy through litigation, potentially fragmenting enforcement across jurisdictions.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill creates a mandatory detention rule for a specific class of immigration violations, which may enhance public safety by removing individuals charged with theft from communities before trial or removal proceedings. However, it simultaneously expands state power to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions, potentially creating conflicting detention mandates and litigation costs that could strain both federal and state resources, and it applies a very low harm thresh