The Laken Riley Act, enacted on January 29, 2025, represents a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. This legislation mandates the detention, without the possibility of bail, for specific noncitizens arrested or charged with particular crimes. These crimes encompass a range of offenses, including burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, and crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
The Act targets noncitizens who are inadmissible due to having entered the country without inspection, engaging in immigration fraud or misrepresentation, or making false claims of citizenship. Notably, the law lacks provisions for release even if the criminal charges are later dropped. Furthermore, it applies to immigrants authorized to be in the United States, such as asylum seekers and those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There are no exceptions for minors.
As the initial immigration enforcement legislation of Trump’s new presidency, the Laken Riley Act garnered substantial bipartisan support, with 46 House Democrats and ten Democratic senators joining all Republicans in endorsing it.
The Origins and Intent Behind the Laken Riley Act
The law is named in memory of Laken Riley, a nursing student in Georgia who was tragically murdered by an asylum applicant from Venezuela. The perpetrator was convicted and is currently serving a life sentence without parole. He had previously been apprehended for petty theft in New York but was not detained. While this crime was undeniably horrific, an in-depth study on incarceration rates found that, over the past 150 years, immigrants have been statistically less likely to commit crimes compared to people born in the United States.
Concerns Regarding Due Process and Potential Unintended Consequences
Immigrant rights advocates and other concerned parties have voiced strong objections to the Laken Riley Act, citing its potential for undermining due process for suspects. Organizations like CLINIC have described the mandatory detention for individuals merely accused of low-level crimes as “[unconstitutional, impractical, and often inhumane].” The concern is that many immigrants arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, faced with the prospect of mandatory and indefinite detention, may feel pressured to relinquish their rights to an immigration hearing or a trial on the criminal charges, if any are brought. Consequently, they could be deported without due process, even if the alleged acts do not qualify as deportable offenses.
State Authority Over Immigration and Foreign Relations
Beyond the widely discussed detention provisions, the Laken Riley Act includes other, potentially far-reaching clauses that have received less attention. These provisions grant state officials the authority to sue to block the issuance of visas to individuals from countries they believe are not fully cooperating with the United States in accepting deportees. These countries are categorized as “recalcitrant countries” and currently include nations such as Vietnam, China, India, Cuba, and Russia. This transfer of power over immigration and foreign relations to the states is unprecedented.
State Lawsuits Against the Federal Government
The law also empowers states to sue the federal government if an immigrant paroled into the country commits a crime that harms the state or its residents. This effectively gives governors and state attorneys general control over federal enforcement and detention policies. While it is unlikely that any state would exercise this authority to sue the current administration, it could provide them with significant leverage during a future administration that changes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement priorities.
This provision potentially sets up a constitutional challenge. Previous lawsuits filed by Texas and other states challenging the Biden administration’s termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) and its prioritization of removing noncitizens who pose a threat to national security were found lacking by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the Executive Branch’s broad discretionary power over the enforcement of laws, including those in the immigration context. Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022); United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. ____ (2023).
Funding and Implementation Challenges
Despite the enactment of the Laken Riley Act, Congress has not yet allocated funding for the additional DHS agents or detention space needed to enforce the new law. Prior to its passage, the agency sent a memo to lawmakers warning that implementation would be “impossible to execute with existing resources.” DHS estimated that the law would cost an additional $26 billion in its first year to cover personnel costs, detention resources, transportation, and other expenses. The agency also anticipated resistance from states, cities, and local jurisdictions that do not currently cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Conclusion: A Complex and Controversial Law
The Laken Riley Act represents a complex and controversial piece of legislation with potentially far-reaching consequences for immigration enforcement, due process, and the relationship between the federal government and the states. Its implementation faces significant challenges, and its long-term impact remains to be seen. The Act will likely continue to be a subject of debate and legal challenges in the years to come.
