HR 29 — Congress 119
Laken Riley Act
Official source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/29
Congress.gov subjects: Border security and unlawful immigration; Civil actions and liability; Crimes against property; Criminal investigation, prosecution, interrogation; Detention of persons; Immigration status and procedures; Intergovernmental relations; Refugees, asylum, displaced persons; State and local government operations; Visas and passports; Immigration
Issues impacted: Immigration & Border (taxonomy, high)
Official bill text (stored)
Plain-text extraction from Congress.gov text formats. Canonical source remains the official URL above. Full text is prioritized for bills with roll-call votes.
119 HR 29 IH: Laken Riley Act U.S. House of Representatives 2025-01-03 text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. I 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 29 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2025 Mr. Collins (for himself, Mr. Allen , Ms. Greene of Georgia , Mr. Clyde , Mr. Carter of Georgia , Mr. Loudermilk , Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia , Mr. McCormick , Mr. Bost , Mr. Babin , Mr. Feenstra , Ms. Mace , Mr. Cline , Mr. Nehls , Mr. Ogles , Mr. Crenshaw , Mr. McCaul , Mr. Finstad , Mr. Kustoff , Mrs. Hinson , Mrs. Houchin , Ms. Malliotakis , Mr. Ezell , Ms. Tenney , Mrs. Luna , Mr. Owens , Mr. Fitzgerald , Mr. Aderholt , Mr. Weber of Texas , Mr. Johnson of South Dakota , Mr. Stauber , Mr. Van Drew , Mr. Nunn of Iowa , Mr. Jack , Mr. Bresnahan , Mr. Buchanan , Mr. McClintock , Mrs. Harshbarger , Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania , and Mrs. Fischbach ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes. 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Laken Riley Act . 2. Detention of certain aliens who commit theft Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) ) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)— (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking or ; (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end and inserting , or ; and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: (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, ; (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: (2) Definition For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the terms burglary , theft , larceny , and shoplifting have the meaning given such terms in the jurisdiction where the acts occurred. (3) Detainer 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. . 3. Enforcement by attorney general of a State (a) Inspection of applicants for admission Section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1225(b) ) is amended— (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: (3) Enforcement by attorney general of a State 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. 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. . (b) Apprehension and detention of aliens Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1226 ), as amended by this Act, is further amended— (1) in subsection (e)— (A) by striking or release ; and (B) by striking grant, revocation, or denial and insert revocation or denial ; and (2) by adding at the end the following: (f) Enforcement by attorney general of a State 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. 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. . (c) Penalties Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1253 ) is amended by adding at the end the following: (e) Enforcement by attorney general of a State 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. 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. . (d) Certain classes of aliens 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 ; and (2) by adding at the end the following: (C) 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. 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. . (e) Detention Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2) ) is amended— (1) by striking During the removal period, and inserting the following: (A) In general During the removal period, ; and (2) by adding at the end the following: (B) Enforcement by attorney general of a State 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. 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. . (f) 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). .
Plain-English summary
Confidence: high · Complexity: moderate · Model: grok-4.5
The Laken Riley Act is a bill that would make the federal government lock up certain noncitizens who get charged with theft-type crimes.
Here’s the core change. If someone is already in the country without proper papers (or on related grounds like fraud or missing documents) and they get charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting, Homeland Security would have to take them into custody. Local definitions of those crimes would count. The agency would also have to issue a detainer—basically a hold request—and pick the person up quickly if local jails aren’t already holding them.
The bill also hands state attorneys general a new tool. They could sue federal officials in court if they think the government is breaking rules on detention, release, bond, parole, or related visa cutoffs, and the state or its residents took a hit—even a money hit over $100. Judges would have to fast-track those cases.
People most likely to notice: noncitizens facing those theft charges, local law enforcement working with ICE holds, and state officials who want to push the feds in court. Everyday folks wouldn’t see a new program or tax change—just tighter custody rules and more state lawsuits over immigration enforcement.
Related issues
How a vote maps to positions
Impartial mapping: which issue position a Yea vs Nay advances. When a bill has multiple floor votes, each roll can have its own mapping. Bill-level entries (no roll listed) apply as a default when a roll has no specific map. Used for legislator alignment.
All rolls (bill default)
| Issue | Yea advances | Nay advances | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immigration & Border | Enforcement- and deterrence-first | Incremental or status-quo oriented | A yea vote would add theft-related charges and admissions to mandatory detention triggers, require detainers and expeditious federal custody, and empower states to sue to enforce detention, removal, and parole limits—consistent with enforcement- and deterrence-first interior immigration policy. A nay vote would reject that expansion of mandatory custody categories and new state standing, leaving existing statutory detention and enforcement frameworks in place. |