WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 5

Criminal History Background Check

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tom Fernandez and 1 co-sponsor

DHS must detain certain inadmissible noncitizens tied to burglary/theft/assault; states gain standing to sue to enforce detention, parole, and visa rules.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 5

Summary — S. 5 (Laken Riley Act)

Short title: Laken Riley Act
Public Law No.: 119-1 (approved Jan. 29, 2025)
Introduced: Jan. 6, 2025 — Signed by the President: Jan. 29, 2025

Purpose

The Laken Riley Act requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain noncitizens who are inadmissible on specified grounds and who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit to committing certain theft- and violence-related offenses. The law also creates new private-state enforcement authority allowing State attorneys general (or authorized state officers) to sue to enforce several immigration detention, parole, and visa-related requirements.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new mandatory detention category to Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)). An alien who:
    • is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A), 212(a)(6)(C), or 212(a)(7) (as cross-referenced in the bill), and
    • is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury, must be the subject of a DHS detainer and, where not otherwise detained, “effectively and expeditiously” taken into DHS custody.
  • Defines the listed criminal terms and “serious bodily injury” by reference to their meanings in the jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
  • Grants State attorneys general (or authorized state officers) standing to sue in federal district court to seek injunctive relief against the Secretary of Homeland Security (and in some provisions the Attorney General or Secretary of State) for alleged violations of detention, bond/parole, inspection/admission, visa discontinuation, and removal-period detention requirements. The statute directs courts to expedite such suits and specifies that a State or its residents are considered harmed if they experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.
  • Amends Section 212(d)(5) to substitute references to the “Secretary of Homeland Security” for “Attorney General” and adds parallel state-enforcement standing for parole limitations.
  • Adds a targeted limitation to 8 U.S.C. 1252(f) clarifying that the general bar on certain injunctive relief does not apply to actions brought under the new state-enforcement provisions in specified INA sections.

Who is affected

  • Noncitizens inadmissible under the cited 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) provisions who are charged with or admit to specified offenses — increased likelihood of DHS detention.
  • DHS/ICE and the Department of Justice — operational and litigation responsibilities to detain, issue detainers, and defend new state suits.
  • State attorneys general — new statutory standing to sue the federal government over perceived failures to detain, deny bond/parole, or enforce visa-related provisions.
  • State and local governments and affected communities — potential operational, fiscal, and civil‑liberties implications.

Procedural history & votes

  • Senate passage (with amendment): Jan. 20, 2025 — 64–35.
  • House passage: Jan. 22, 2025 — 263–156.
  • Presented to President: Jan. 23, 2025.
  • Signed into law: Jan. 29, 2025 (Public Law No. 119-1).

Potential implications

  • Likely increase in mandatory detentions and detainer requests for the enumerated group; operational impacts on DHS/ICE resources and federal detention capacity.
  • Increased federal litigation initiated by States asserting injury from federal immigration decisions; potential for expedited but numerous suits.
  • Changes interaction between federal immigration enforcement discretion and State enforcement interests; may affect how parole, bond, and detention decisions are implemented and challenged.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.