Joni Ernst (R-IA)· Jan 20, 2025
S.Amdt. 8: To include crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the list of offenses that, if committed by an inadmissible alien, require mandatory detention.
Adopted
7524
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 53 cosponsors
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-1.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
What this bill would do
This legislation is known as the Laken Riley Act. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to take certain inadmissible aliens into custody if they are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to committing burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury. The bill mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security issue a detainer for these individuals and take them into custody if they are not already detained by other officials. Additionally, the measure grants State attorneys general or other authorized State officers the right to bring civil actions in U.S. district courts against federal officials for violations related to detention, release, visa issuance, or parole requirements that harm the State or its residents by more than $100. Courts are instructed to expedite these lawsuits as much as possible.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +3
Does this tighten control of the border?
The bill emphasizes the detention of aliens charged with theft, potentially contributing to increased border security efforts.
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Grants State Attorneys General the power to sue the federal government, increasing state power relative to the federal government.
- Scored +1
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Detaining aliens charged with theft-related crimes might increase the feeling of safety for middle-class households.
The opposite· 3 of 7
- Scored -5
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The bill negatively impacts immigrants facing charges, as it mandates their detention.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens?
By mandating detention for certain offenses, the bill could reduce opportunities for some immigrants to pursue a pathway to citizenship.
- Scored -2
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Mandatory detention could disproportionately affect Hispanic Americans due to immigration status concerns and existing disparities in the criminal justice system.
What Congress actually voted on
5 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. 2 of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The Senate: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 64 yes · 35 no
01/20/2025 · Roll call 7 · recorded as “On Passage of the Bill S. 5”
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 263 yes · 156 no
01/22/2025 · Roll call 23 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The Senate: a vote to end debate and allow a final vote In the Senate, debate can continue indefinitely unless 60 senators vote to end it. This vote is that attempt. It decides whether the Senate may vote on the thing at all — not whether the thing passes. A failed cloture vote usually ends the matter without anyone ever voting on its merits. Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to 84 yes · 9 no
01/09/2025 · Roll call 1 · recorded as “On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed S. 5”
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Motion to Proceed Agreed to 82 yes · 10 no
01/13/2025 · Roll call 2 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S. 5”
- The Senate: a vote to end debate and allow a final vote In the Senate, debate can continue indefinitely unless 60 senators vote to end it. This vote is that attempt. It decides whether the Senate may vote on the thing at all — not whether the thing passes. A failed cloture vote usually ends the matter without anyone ever voting on its merits. Cloture Motion Agreed to 61 yes · 35 no
01/17/2025 · Roll call 5 · recorded as “On the Cloture Motion S. 5”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
State Enforcement Authority: Under Section 3, state attorneys general or authorized state officers are explicitly given the standing to bring legal actions in U.S. district courts against federal officials if violations of detention and removal requirements harm the state or its residents by more than $100. This provision allows states to hold federal officials accountable for releasing certain individuals or failing to meet detention requirements.
-
Mandatory Custody: Under Section 2, the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to issue a detainer and effectively and expeditiously take custody of certain inadmissible aliens who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of specific offenses like theft, burglary, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer. This ensures that individuals accused of these specific crimes are placed into federal custody.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial and Resource Burdens: Under Section 2, requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue detainers and take custody of individuals charged with or admitting to a broader range of offenses—such as shoplifting or theft—could place a heavy logistical and financial burden on government agencies and detention facilities.
-
Expanded Litigation: Under Section 3, allowing states to sue federal officials over immigration decisions like bond, parole, or release whenever a state or its residents experience financial harm exceeding $100 could lead to a massive wave of lawsuits in federal court.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would high-income households be better off under this? — Detaining aliens charged with theft-related crimes might increase the feeling of safety for high-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Detaining aliens charged with theft-related crimes might increase the feeling of safety for middle-class households. Would white Americans be better off under this? — May increase feelings of safety and security for some white Americans. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill negatively impacts immigrants facing charges, as it mandates their detention. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Mandatory detention could disproportionately affect Hispanic Americans due to immigration status concerns and existing disparities in the criminal justice system. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Mandatory detention could disproportionately affect African Americans due to existing disparities in the criminal justice system. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Mandatory detention could disproportionately affect Asian Americans due to immigration status concerns and existing disparities in the criminal justice system.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this tighten control of the border? — The bill emphasizes the detention of aliens charged with theft, potentially contributing to increased border security efforts. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — By mandating detention for certain offenses, the bill could reduce opportunities for some immigrants to pursue a pathway to citizenship. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Mandatory detention based on immigration status could disproportionately affect certain racial and ethnic groups.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Grants State Attorneys General the power to sue the federal government, increasing state power relative to the federal government. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Mandatory detention for certain charges may raise due process concerns for those detained.
- Public Law (1/30/2025)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
John Cornyn (R-TX)· Jan 15, 2025
S.Amdt. 14: To expand the list of criminal offenses that subject inadmissible aliens to mandatory detention.
Adopted
7025
Christopher Coons (D-DE)· Jan 15, 2025
S.Amdt. 23: To strike the section that authorizes State attorneys general to sue Federal immigration authorities for alleged violations relating to the detention of aliens.
Failed
4649
- 1/29/2025
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-1.
- 1/23/2025
- Presented to President.
- 1/22/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 156 (Roll no. 23). (text: CR H277-278)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H285-286)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of the debate on S. 5, 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 S. 5.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 471 and S. 5. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 471 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of S. 5 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to commit.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 53. (consideration: CR H277-284)
- Rule H. Res. 53 passed House.
- 1/21/2025
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 53 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 471 and S. 5. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 471 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of S. 5 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to commit.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 1/20/2025
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S246-251)
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 64 - 35. Record Vote Number: 7.
- Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 64 - 35. Record Vote Number: 7. (text: CR S250-251)
- 1/17/2025
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S237-241)
- Cloture on the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 61 - 35. Record Vote Number: 5. (CR S240)
- 1/16/2025
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S198-218)
- 1/15/2025
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S161-182)
- Cloture motion on the measure presented in Senate. (CR S182)
- 1/14/2025
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S130)
- 1/13/2025
- Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (CR S83)
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 82 - 10. Record Vote Number: 2. (CR S87)
- Measure laid before Senate by motion.
- 1/9/2025
- Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (CR S70)
- Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 84 - 9. Record Vote Number: 1. (CR S73)
- 1/8/2025
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S46)
- Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate. (CR S46)
- 20 Cosponsors added.
- 1/7/2025
- Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1.
- 1/6/2025
- Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
- 33 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 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.
- 119-HR-29: Laken Riley Act
- 119-S-149: Public Safety First Act
- 119-HRES-53: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) 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.
John BoozmanRepublican · Arkansas
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
John BarrassoRepublican · Wyoming
Jim BanksRepublican · Indiana
Ted BuddRepublican · North Carolina
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Susan CollinsRepublican · Maine
Shelley CapitoRepublican · West Virginia
- John Cornyn
Republican · Texas
Bill CassidyRepublican · Louisiana
Tom CottonRepublican · Arkansas
Kevin CramerRepublican · North Dakota
Ted CruzRepublican · Texas
John CurtisRepublican · Utah
Steve DainesRepublican · Montana
- Joni Ernst
Republican · Iowa
Deb FischerRepublican · Nebraska
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Lindsey GrahamRepublican · South Carolina
Chuck GrassleyRepublican · Iowa
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
Bill HagertyRepublican · Tennessee
John HoevenRepublican · North Dakota
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
Josh HawleyRepublican · Missouri
Ron JohnsonRepublican · Wisconsin
John KennedyRepublican · Louisiana
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
James LankfordRepublican · Oklahoma
Mike LeeRepublican · Utah
Mitch McConnellRepublican · Kentucky
Jerry MoranRepublican · Kansas
Lisa MurkowskiRepublican · Alaska
Markwayne MullinRepublican · Oklahoma
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas
Bernie MorenoRepublican · Ohio
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Rand PaulRepublican · Kentucky
James RischRepublican · Idaho
Marco RubioRepublican · Florida
Mike RoundsRepublican · South Dakota
Pete RickettsRepublican · Nebraska
Tim ScottRepublican · South Carolina
Dan SullivanRepublican · Alaska
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida
Eric SchmittRepublican · Missouri
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana
John ThuneRepublican · South Dakota
Tommy TubervilleRepublican · Alabama
Thomas TillisRepublican · North Carolina
J. VanceRepublican · Ohio
Roger WickerRepublican · Mississippi
Todd YoungRepublican · Indiana