What would the Laken Riley Act do?

Introduced by Alabama Senator Katie Britt in 2024 and again earlier this month, the Laken Riley Act passed the House of Representatives on Jan. 7. Given the new 52 seat Republican majority in the Senate, it seems likely it may pass that chamber shortly, as well. If so, the Laken Riley Act could become law as soon as January 20, assuming President Biden would not sign it before President-elect Trump’s inauguration.

In a call with reporters last week, Britt said Congressional Democrats could “prove that they heard voters in November and that they’re ready to support commonsense, bipartisan solutions” by voting for the Laken Riley Act.

To invoke cloture and hold a vote on passage, 60 senators need to support the bill. So far, seven Senate Democrats have expressed their support for it. Two, John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, and Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, have co-sponsored it.

In the House, 48 Democrats voted for the bill, including both Democratic representatives from Alabama: Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures. Notably, Sewell voted against the Laken Riley Act less than a year ago.

“I believe that when someone commits a crime, they must be held accountable,” Sewell stated in response to an inquiry from APR about this reversal. “This murder was a senseless tragedy that may have been prevented if a law like this was in effect. Undocumented immigrants who commit crimes should not be allowed to stay in our communities.”

“The high murder rate in Birmingham this year adds to the urgency to enforce strong anti-crime laws,” she added. According to crime statistics, 2024 was officially the deadliest year in the city’s history. However, it does not currently appear like any of these homicides were committed by undocumented immigrants.

If passed and signed into law, the Laken Riley Act would dramatically increase the requirements for the Department of Homeland Security to detain immigrants. Most controversially, it would require the detention of people who are merely arrested for, but not even charged with, “any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.” Critics have pointed out that this includes people who are arrested under false pretenses.

“This bill, as currently written, would eliminate ICE’s discretion to prioritize the detention and deportation of dangerous individuals,” Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said on Monday. “Instead, it requires ICE to treat a child arrested for shoplifting candy the same as an adult convicted of child abuse.”

Former ICE chief of staff Jason Houser told Time Magazine that in his opinion enforcing the Laken Riley Act would both require diverting resources from pursuing violent offenders and reduce the number of violent convicted criminals being detained.

The authors of a December memo from ICE to members of Congress estimated that enforcing the Laken Riley Act would mean detaining 60,000 more immigrants. They calculated that this would require almost $15 million more in annual funding for personnel and $3.2 billion more to expand their detention capacity. The Laken Riley Act as written does not provide any more funding for ICE or the DHS.

Britt told Semafor though that the estimated scope of deportations under the proposed law, and associated costs, is “evidence of why the Laken Riley Act is needed — not a reason to oppose the bill.”

Beyond mandating that the DHS detain more undocumented immigrants, the Laken Riley Act would also allow state attorneys general to sue the Secretary of State whenever a state or its residents suffer “harm, including financial harm in excess of $100” as a result of select immigration policy decisions.

Patrick Gaspard, the president of the Center for American Progress, wrote that these provisions “risk setting a highly replicable precedent for the future that could cause chaotic and uneven implementation of federal laws across a sweeping range of issues, including the enforcement of drug laws, gun violence prevention laws, or any other federal laws of disagreement.”

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, though, is far less worried about this potential expansion of his ability to sue the federal government. “Marshall has long advocated for states to play a role in immigration enforcement,” William Califf told APR on Monday. Califf is the deputy chief of staff for the Alabama Office of the Attorney General.

“When it comes to immigration, the federal government preempts the states on paper only and has failed to fulfill its lawful duties to the American people,” he continued. “The Laken Riley Act would give state attorneys general a much-needed tool to protect the people of their states from the dangers of illegal immigration, rather than forcing states to beg federal courts for the right to keep our citizens safe.”

An amendment proposed by Senator Chris Coons, D-Delaware, which would have removed this grant of authority to state attorneys general was voted down yesterday.

Senate majority leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, has already filed cloture on the Laken Riley Act. The mostly unamended bill will have to receive 60 votes in order to then be passed by a simple majority of the Senate and sent back down to the House for their approval.