Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
This bill bars the Attorney General from bringing or maintaining any civil action under sections 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, against a State for constructing a physical barrier along that State’s international border intended to prevent aliens from entering or to protect State territory. It applies to actions pending on enactment and defines “alien,” “barrier,” and “immigration laws” by reference to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Progressives emphasize undermining federal enforcement and environmental harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive change that plainly bars the Department of Justice from pursuing civil actions under specified provisions of the Act of March 3, 1899, against States undertaking defined border-barrier measures.
This bill bars the Attorney General from bringing or maintaining any civil action under sections 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, against a State for constructing a physical barrier along that State’s international border intended to prevent aliens from entering or to protect State territory.
It applies to actions pending on enactment and defines “alien,” “barrier,” and “immigration laws” by reference to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The prohibition specifically references civil actions under the cited 1899 Act (33 U.S.C. 401).
Narrow but ideologically charged and constitutionally sensitive; substantial Senate difficulty and limited compromise features.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive change that plainly bars the Department of Justice from pursuing civil actions under specified provisions of the Act of March 3, 1899, against States undertaking defined border-barrier measures. It provides basic definitions and explicitly covers pending actions, but otherwise is minimalistic.
Progressives emphasize undermining federal enforcement and environmental harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize undermining federal enforcement and environmental harms
Likely opposed.
This persona would view the bill as limiting federal enforcement tools and enabling states to bypass federal environmental and navigable‑waters controls.
They would be concerned about ecological harm, civil‑rights and safety implications, and erosion of federal immigration and treaty responsibilities.
Mixed: understands state frustration over border enforcement gaps but worries about legal, constitutional, and environmental consequences.
Would seek narrow, well‑defined limits, federal‑state coordination, and clarity on liability and navigable‑waters impacts before endorsing.
Generally supportive.
This persona would view the bill as protecting state sovereignty and preventing perceived federal overreach by DOJ.
They would emphasize the need for states to secure borders and welcome the bar on civil suits, including pending cases.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged and constitutionally sensitive; substantial Senate difficulty and limited compromise features.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize undermining federal enforcement and environmental harms
Narrow but ideologically charged and constitutionally sensitive; substantial Senate difficulty and limited compromise features.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive change that plainly bars the Department of Justice from pursuing civil actions under specified provisions of the Act of March 3, 1899, agains…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.