Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill (Grant’s Law) amends INA sections 236(c) and 239(d) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any unlawfully present noncitizen arrested for specified criminal offenses that would make them inadmissible or deportable. It allows DHS to transfer temporary custody to other authorities for criminal proceedings but requires DHS to resume custody whenever the individual is not held by that authority, and to continue detaining any arrested-but-not-convicted alien until removal proceedings conclude.
Progressives emphasize due‑process and civil‑liberties harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly identifies the policy change and modifies specific INA provisions to implement it.
The bill (Grant’s Law) amends INA sections 236(c) and 239(d) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any unlawfully present noncitizen arrested for specified criminal offenses that would make them inadmissible or deportable.
It allows DHS to transfer temporary custody to other authorities for criminal proceedings but requires DHS to resume custody whenever the individual is not held by that authority, and to continue detaining any arrested-but-not-convicted alien until removal proceedings conclude.
It also mandates that removal proceedings for such detainees be completed within 90 days and shifts specified custody/authority language to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
A narrow but highly controversial enforcement bill with fiscal and legal risks; likely to face strong opposition and procedural hurdles, especially in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly identifies the policy change and modifies specific INA provisions to implement it. It specifies responsible actors and a processing deadline, but it omits substantive resourcing, detailed operational procedures, and oversight/reporting features that would be expected for a statutory expansion of mandatory detention.
Progressives emphasize due‑process and civil‑liberties harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize due‑process and civil‑liberties harms
Likely to view the bill as an expansion of mandatory immigration detention with serious civil‑liberties and due‑process concerns.
It raises alarm about prolonged detention of noncitizens who are not convicted and risks to immigrant communities and legal fairness.
Views the bill as aiming to strengthen public safety and clarify custody, but worries about administrative feasibility, costs, and legal challenges.
Supportive of targeted enforcement if paired with safeguards, resources, and realistic timelines.
Sees the bill as a needed step to enforce immigration laws and protect public safety by ensuring removable criminal aliens remain in custody.
Regards expedited processing and clear custody authority as practical improvements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A narrow but highly controversial enforcement bill with fiscal and legal risks; likely to face strong opposition and procedural hurdles, especially in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize due‑process and civil‑liberties harms
A narrow but highly controversial enforcement bill with fiscal and legal risks; likely to face strong opposition and procedural hurdles, es…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly identifies the policy change and modifies specific INA provisions to implement it. It specifies responsible actors and a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.