Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends INA section 236(c) to require detention and issuance of DHS detainers for certain noncitizens inadmissible under specified grounds who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit acts that constitute assault on a law enforcement officer. It defines covered assaults as those during official duties, because of duties, or because of officer status, and defines law enforcement officer to include police, prosecutors, firefighters, and other first responders.
Due process: liberals emphasize bond/hearing concerns; conservatives accept mandatory detention
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly targets detention authority for aliens who assault law enforcement officers and integrates into INA section 236(c).
The bill amends INA section 236(c) to require detention and issuance of DHS detainers for certain noncitizens inadmissible under specified grounds who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admit acts that constitute assault on a law enforcement officer.
It defines covered assaults as those during official duties, because of duties, or because of officer status, and defines law enforcement officer to include police, prosecutors, firefighters, and other first responders.
DHS must take custody of such aliens if not already detained by other authorities.
Narrow statutory tweak favors enforcement but raises civil‑liberty, fiscal, and litigation issues; such measures often clear the House but struggle in the Senate and in court.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly targets detention authority for aliens who assault law enforcement officers and integrates into INA section 236(c).
Due process: liberals emphasize bond/hearing concerns; conservatives accept mandatory detention
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Due process: liberals emphasize bond/hearing concerns; conservatives accept mandatory detention
Likely critical overall.
Supports protecting officers, but worries this law expands mandatory detention and allows detention based on charges or admissions without conviction.
Concerned about due process, racial profiling, asylum seekers, and civil liberties.
Mixed but cautiously favorable.
Sees legitimate public-safety rationale for prioritizing assaults on officers, but wants procedural safeguards, implementation details, cost estimates, and protections for asylum applicants.
Would seek bipartisan clarifications.
Generally supportive.
Frames the bill as closing enforcement gaps, protecting law enforcement, and ensuring swift custody and removal of inadmissible offenders.
Sees it as restoring public safety and immigration enforcement priorities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow statutory tweak favors enforcement but raises civil‑liberty, fiscal, and litigation issues; such measures often clear the House but struggle in the Senate and in court.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Due process: liberals emphasize bond/hearing concerns; conservatives accept mandatory detention
Narrow statutory tweak favors enforcement but raises civil‑liberty, fiscal, and litigation issues; such measures often clear the House but…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly targets detention authority for aliens who assault law enforcement officers and integrates into INA section 236(c).
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.