Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security.
The bill prohibits the TSA Administrator from accepting ICE arrest or removal warrants (Forms I–200 and I–205) as valid proof of identification at aviation security checkpoints, except for aliens who are being removed from the United States under immigration law. It defines the prohibited documents and leaves other identification rules unchanged.
Progressives emphasize civil‑liberties and anti‑profiling benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly sets a prohibition and defines the covered documents, but it provides limited supporting detail for implementation, cost, and oversight.
The bill prohibits the TSA Administrator from accepting ICE arrest or removal warrants (Forms I–200 and I–205) as valid proof of identification at aviation security checkpoints, except for aliens who are being removed from the United States under immigration law.
It defines the prohibited documents and leaves other identification rules unchanged.
Technically narrow and implementable, but immigration/security politics and Senate hurdles reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly sets a prohibition and defines the covered documents, but it provides limited supporting detail for implementation, cost, and oversight.
Progressives emphasize civil‑liberties and anti‑profiling benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil‑liberties and anti‑profiling benefits.
Likely supportive because it limits immigration-enforcement use of ID checks at airports and reduces the risk of civil‑liberties harms.
The exception for people actually being removed preserves deportation operations while preventing routine checkpoint use of ICE warrants.
Mixed but cautiously receptive: values civil‑liberty protections at public checkpoints while wanting to avoid gaps in security or enforcement.
Would seek operational safeguards and clearer interagency procedures before strong endorsement.
Likely opposed because it restricts a law‑enforcement tool that can identify and remove noncitizens who may pose risks.
Views the bill as limiting enforcement and protecting those in the country unlawfully.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and implementable, but immigration/security politics and Senate hurdles reduce prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil‑liberties and anti‑profiling benefits.
Technically narrow and implementable, but immigration/security politics and Senate hurdles reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly sets a prohibition and defines the covered documents, but it provides limited supporting detail for imple…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.