Bill
Sponsor avatar

BILL • US SENATE

S 4590

A bill to limit the Department of Homeland Security from detaining children and individuals with a cognitive disability and to prohibit immigration enforcement actions at sensitive locations without a court-issued criminal warrant.

119th Congress
Introduced by Michael Bennet,

The bill would restrict DHS detention of children and people with cognitive disabilities and require a court-issued warrant for immigration enforcement actions at sensitive locatio

Introduced in Senate
0
0
Bill Summary · S 4590

Bill overview

S 4590, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to constrain U.S. Immigration and Homeland Security enforcement practices. The bill would limit the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to detain certain individuals—specifically, children and persons with cognitive disabilities—and it would restrict immigration enforcement actions at sensitive locations unless a court-issued criminal warrant is obtained. The measure has a co-sponsor in Senator Michael Bennet and was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 20, 2026.

Main purpose and intent

  • To reduce or prohibit DHS detention of:
    • Children
    • Individuals with cognitive disabilities
  • To restrict immigration enforcement operations at sensitive locations
  • To require a court-issued criminal warrant for immigration enforcement actions conducted at sensitive locations

The bill focuses on humane treatment standards for detainees (particularly vulnerable groups) and places procedural safeguards on enforcement actions in environments deemed sensitive.

Key provisions and changes

  • Detention limitations:
    • Prohibits or restricts DHS detention of minors (children).
    • Prohibits or restricts detention of individuals with cognitive disabilities.
  • Enforcement at sensitive locations:
    • Prohibits immigration enforcement actions (e.g., arrests, raids) at sensitive locations unless a court issues a criminal warrant.
  • Warrant requirement:
    • Establishes that enforcement actions at sensitive locations require a court-issued criminal warrant, providing judicial oversight.
  • Definitions and scope (as applicable):
    • The bill likely defines terms such as “children,” “cognitive disability,” and “sensitive locations” to guide application, though precise definitions would be specified in the text.
  • Legislative process:
    • Introduced in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration and potential markup or reporting.

Who or what is affected

  • DHS and its component agencies (e.g., ICE, CBP) would be directly affected in terms of detention policies and enforcement procedures.
  • Individuals who are:
    • Children, including unaccompanied minors, in DHS custody or encountered by DHS enforcement.
    • Persons with cognitive disabilities in DHS custody or subject to enforcement actions.
  • Operations at sensitive locations (e.g., schools, places of worship, healthcare facilities, polling places, courthouses) would be constrained in terms of enforcement actions without a court warrant.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Current status: Introduced in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee (as of 2026-05-20).
  • Next steps: Committee consideration, potential debate, amendments, and floor votes. If advanced, the bill would proceed through the regular bicameral process (House compatibility, conference committee if needed, presidential approval or veto).

Potential impact considerations

  • Human rights and civil liberties: Aims to provide safeguards for minors and individuals with disabilities, reducing detention exposure and ensuring judicial oversight for sensitive-location actions.
  • Border and immigration enforcement policy: Represents a shift toward more restrictive warrant-based enforcement at sensitive sites, potentially limiting DHS operational flexibility.
  • Implementation and cost: Could require DHS to modify intake, detention, and enforcement protocols; potential need for additional training and coordination with courts.
  • Legal interpretation: Definitions of “sensitive locations,” “children,” and “cognitive disability” will influence scope and applicability; regulatory guidance may follow if the bill advances.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific audience (e.g., policymakers, advocates, researchers) or compare it to current law to highlight concrete changes.

Hi! I'm your AI assistant for S 4590. I can help you understand its provisions, impacts, and answer any questions.

Key Provisions Impacts Timeline
Sign in to chat

Start the Conversation

Be the first to share your thoughts on this petition. Your voice matters!

Share your opinion above