A Democratic bill with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Respect for Local Communities Act seeks to limit how the Department of Homeland Security handles new immigration facilities. It prohibits the construction, acquisition, renovation, or operation of new ICE processing sites or detention centers unless specific steps are taken first. These steps include issuing a public notice for comments and conducting due diligence on environmental and federal standards. Additionally, the agency must enter into written agreements with local and state officials. Finally, the agency must provide advance notice and reports to specific Congressional committees.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill requires federal agencies to enter into signed, written agreements with State Governors and local officials before operating new facilities.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates public notices, comment periods, and formal reports to Congressional committees.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill requires due diligence regarding compliance with applicable environmental regulations for new facilities.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this tighten control of the border?
The bill imposes significant procedural hurdles and delays on the establishment of ICE detention and processing facilities.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public Input and Transparency: The bill requires a public notice in the Federal Register that must remain open for public comments for at least 30 days, allowing people to have a voice (Section 3, Paragraph 1).
-
Environmental and Economic Oversight: Agencies must provide an economic impact analysis and an engineering review regarding water usage, electrical demand, and waste exportation (Section 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph E).
-
Local Government Authority: The bill requires the federal government to enter into a signed, written agreement with appropriate local government officials and the State Governor before proceeding (Section 3, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph B).
-
Regulatory Compliance: The due diligence process must explain how the agency will comply with federal guidance, standards, and environmental regulations (Section 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph C).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Bureaucracy and Delays: The requirement for public comment periods, engineering reviews, economic analyses, and signed agreements with multiple officials could delay the operation of new facilities (Section 3).
-
Complex Approval Processes: Before any new facility can be used, the head of the agency must consider and respond to significant comments and wait at least 30 days after submitting reports to several different Congressional committees (Section 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates public notices, comment periods, and formal reports to Congressional committees. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill requires federal agencies to enter into signed, written agreements with State Governors and local officials before operating new facilities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill increases transparency and local control over the construction and operation of ICE detention centers. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill increases transparency and local oversight regarding the infrastructure used to hold immigrants. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Local government officials gain more authority and oversight regarding new detention facilities in their jurisdictions. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Local government officials gain more authority and oversight regarding new detention facilities in their jurisdictions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The required economic impact analysis may provide better oversight of local resource usage.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill requires due diligence regarding compliance with applicable environmental regulations for new facilities.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill requires economic impact analyses for new facility operations.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — By increasing oversight of detention centers, the bill provides more transparency into the immigration detention process. Does this protect the right to vote? — The bill mandates a public notice and comment period in the Federal Register to increase civic participation. Does this tighten control of the border? — The bill imposes significant procedural hurdles and delays on the establishment of ICE detention and processing facilities.
- 4/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/23/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Valerie FousheeDemocrat · North Carolina
Maggie GoodlanderDemocrat · New Hampshire
Chrissy HoulahanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Frank PalloneDemocrat · New Jersey
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan