Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends INA section 239(d) to require the Attorney General to begin removal proceedings promptly after DHS serves a Notice to Appear or, for convicted removable aliens, promptly after conviction. It mandates that immigration court proceedings for those aliens be completed within 15 days of commencement, and directs the Attorney General to take all actions, including issuing regulations and guidance, to meet that 15-day deadline.
Progressives emphasize due process and asylum harms from a 15-day rule.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets a substantive legal obligation (a 15-day completion requirement for certain removal proceedings) and assigns responsibility to the Attorney General to implement it via regulations and guidance.
The bill amends INA section 239(d) to require the Attorney General to begin removal proceedings promptly after DHS serves a Notice to Appear or, for convicted removable aliens, promptly after conviction.
It mandates that immigration court proceedings for those aliens be completed within 15 days of commencement, and directs the Attorney General to take all actions, including issuing regulations and guidance, to meet that 15-day deadline.
The 15-day completion requirement is stated to apply notwithstanding any other law, explicitly including INA section 208(d)(5)(A).
High controversy, substantial operational burdens, and lack of compromise features reduce enactment odds absent significant changes or added funding.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets a substantive legal obligation (a 15-day completion requirement for certain removal proceedings) and assigns responsibility to the Attorney General to implement it via regulations and guidance. However, while the objective and a concrete deadline are specified, the bill provides minimal operational detail, no resource or cost acknowledgement, limited integration with related procedural statutes, and no accountability or exception framework.
Progressives emphasize due process and asylum harms from a 15-day rule.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize due process and asylum harms from a 15-day rule.
This persona would view the bill as a restrictive, enforcement-focused measure that risks undermining due process and asylum protections.
They would be especially concerned about the 15-day completion deadline and the explicit override of provisions in the asylum statute.
This persona sees merit in addressing immigration court delays and enforcing timely removals, but worries the 15-day mandate is impractical without resources.
They would weigh efficiency gains against legal, logistical, and humanitarian tradeoffs.
This persona would generally favor the bill as a strong enforcement tool to ensure rapid deportation of removable aliens, especially criminal offenders.
They would applaud the statutory override and the 15-day completion mandate as accountability measures.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy, substantial operational burdens, and lack of compromise features reduce enactment odds absent significant changes or added funding.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize due process and asylum harms from a 15-day rule.
High controversy, substantial operational burdens, and lack of compromise features reduce enactment odds absent significant changes or adde…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets a substantive legal obligation (a 15-day completion requirement for certain removal proceedings) and assigns responsibility to the Attorney General to im…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.