Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill adds a new section to the Communications Act making it unlawful to provide, facilitate, or possess wireless communications devices in U.S. detention facilities in violation of federal or state law. It creates civil forfeiture penalties up to $50,000 per violation or day (capped at $1,000,000), removes a citation requirement for forfeiture, imposes criminal fines up to $50,000 per violation, and limits forfeiture claims to violations within two years.
Progressives emphasize civil-liberty and due-process harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new substantive prohibition and penalty structure within the Communications Act for providing or possessing wireless communications devices in detention facilities.
The bill adds a new section to the Communications Act making it unlawful to provide, facilitate, or possess wireless communications devices in U.S. detention facilities in violation of federal or state law.
It creates civil forfeiture penalties up to $50,000 per violation or day (capped at $1,000,000), removes a citation requirement for forfeiture, imposes criminal fines up to $50,000 per violation, and limits forfeiture claims to violations within two years.
The bill exempts authorized law-enforcement and intelligence activities, defines "wireless communications device" broadly (including components enabling network authentication), and takes effect on enactment.
Substantively narrow and safety-oriented (increases odds), but federalism overlap, forfeiture/penalty concerns, and procedural realities reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new substantive prohibition and penalty structure within the Communications Act for providing or possessing wireless communications devices in detention facilities. It provides concrete definitions and penalty provisions and relies on established enforcement provisions of the Communications Act.
Progressives emphasize civil-liberty and due-process harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil-liberty and due-process harms
Skeptical but not uniformly opposed.
Supporters of civil rights would acknowledge public-safety goals but worry about civil liberties, due process, and overbroad federal authority.
The broad device definition and civil-forfeiture provisions raise particular concern.
Cautiously supportive of the bill's safety goals but seeks clarifications and procedural safeguards.
A centrist would want clear definitions, safeguards against overreach, and assurance about federal-state roles and costs.
Generally supportive as a law-and-order measure strengthening penalties for smuggling contraband phones into prisons.
Views it as a legitimate tool to combat criminal coordination and protect corrections staff and the public.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively narrow and safety-oriented (increases odds), but federalism overlap, forfeiture/penalty concerns, and procedural realities reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil-liberty and due-process harms
Substantively narrow and safety-oriented (increases odds), but federalism overlap, forfeiture/penalty concerns, and procedural realities re…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new substantive prohibition and penalty structure within the Communications Act for providing or possessing wireless communications devices in d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.