Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill (Access to Counsel Act) amends INA section 235 to require DHS to ensure covered individuals subject to secondary or deferred inspection have a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and an interested party. It requires access within one hour of secondary inspection start (including telephone), allows counsel to advocate and provide evidence, and seeks in-person accommodation when practicable.
Progressives emphasize due process and preventing coerced I-407 signings
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive change to immigration inspection procedure by creating defined rights to consult with counsel and by specifying who is covered, who qualifies as counsel, and certain timing and waiver constraints, but it leaves significant operational, fiscal, and enforcement details to agency discretion.
The bill (Access to Counsel Act) amends INA section 235 to require DHS to ensure covered individuals subject to secondary or deferred inspection have a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and an interested party.
It requires access within one hour of secondary inspection start (including telephone), allows counsel to advocate and provide evidence, and seeks in-person accommodation when practicable.
A special rule prevents accepting Form I-407 from lawful permanent residents without first offering a chance to seek advice, unless a written, knowing waiver is signed.
Modest, administratively focused reform with limited fiscal impact but situated in a politically charged policy area and likely to face Senate friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive change to immigration inspection procedure by creating defined rights to consult with counsel and by specifying who is covered, who qualifies as counsel, and certain timing and waiver constraints, but it leaves significant operational, fiscal, and enforcement details to agency discretion.
Progressives emphasize due process and preventing coerced I-407 signings
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize due process and preventing coerced I-407 signings
Sees the bill as strengthening due process at ports of entry and protecting vulnerable people from coerced actions.
Views the I-407 special rule as an important safeguard for LPRs.
Concerned about implementation but supportive of legal access protections.
Generally approves of clarifying access to counsel to protect rights, but worries about operational impacts and costs.
Likely to support the principle while seeking implementation details, funding, and measurements to limit unintended consequences.
Views the bill as an encroachment on CBP operational discretion that could hinder border security and slow inspections.
Supports narrow protections for citizens and LPRs but opposes broad requirements that increase administrative burden.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest, administratively focused reform with limited fiscal impact but situated in a politically charged policy area and likely to face Senate friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize due process and preventing coerced I-407 signings
Modest, administratively focused reform with limited fiscal impact but situated in a politically charged policy area and likely to face Sen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a substantive change to immigration inspection procedure by creating defined rights to consult with counsel and by specifying who is covered, who qualifie…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.