January 29, 2025, former President Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act, a new immigration law that gives state attorneys general the power to interfere in federal immigration matters—particularly visa issuance — a power that’s always been the domain of the executive branch. But legal experts say the law oversteps the president’s authority on foreign policy and sets up constitutional challenges that may not exist in other contexts.
Key Provisions of the Laken Riley Act
The Laken Riley Act changes the way visas are issued, especially for nationals of certain countries. Here are the main points:
- Mandatory Detention: Requires detention of undocumented immigrants arrested (even if not convicted) for specific crimes like theft (including misdemeanors), assaulting law enforcement, and bodily harm or death.
- State Power Over Federal Immigration Policy: Sue for Injunctive ReliefStates AGs and other state officers can now sue to stop visas from being issued to nationals of countries that refuse to take back their citizens who have been ordered removed from the US.
- Impact on Visa Stamping at US ConsulatesForeign nationals from affected countries may have trouble getting visa stamps at US consulates if their home country doesn’t comply with repatriation orders. If implemented, the law could bar hundreds of thousands of people—including workers, students, and visitors—from entering the US from affected countries like India, China, Pakistan and Russia.
- Lawsuit can Disrupt Federal Immigration ProcessWith states having the power to sue, immigration policies may become inconsistent and new legal battles, making the visa process complicated for some applicants.
For more detailed content on each provision, users can refer to the official documentation or our website.
How it Affects Foreign Nationals
The Laken Riley Act can impact the visa application process for individuals from countries that don’t accept deported nationals. If an individual’s home country is non-compliant, they may:
- Delays or Denials in Visa StampingForeign nationals needing new visa stamps for travel or first-time visa issuance may encounter issues if their country is targeted under this law.
- Uncertainty in Immigration StatusIndividuals currently in the US on valid visas may face problems when trying to renew or extend their status.
- Travel RestrictionsThose planning to travel internationally may need to rethink their plans if visa stamping becomes uncertain due to their country’s non-cooperation with the US.
- Mandatory Detention for being charged, but not convicted, for sometimes minor offenses
Foreign nationals may need to spend considerable time searching for alternative visa options if their home country is non-compliant.
What Else?
The Laken Riley Act changes the immigration landscape, introducing state-level power over federal matters. Here’s what else to expect:
- International ConsequencesCountries that don’t repatriate their nationals may face diplomatic issues with the US, possibly leading to broader visa restrictions or economic sanctions.
- Legal Hurdles and UncertaintyAs state AGs exercise their new powers, lawsuits will arise and court cases will prolong, affecting visa applicants and federal immigration policy. Applicants may find it difficult to navigate the new legal landscape, often encountering broken links or outdated information.
- Policy Changes due to ComplianceCountries that previously refused to take back deported nationals may reevaluate to avoid visa stamping issues for their citizens.
What to Do Next
- Monitor International ComplianceWe will need to track which countries comply with repatriation requests and which face visa restrictions under this law. For more content on international compliance, visit our website.
- Adjust Your Immigration StrategyForeign nationals from affected countries should stay informed and consider alternative visa options if their country is non-compliant.
- Legal Help and AdvocacyImpacted individuals may need to seek legal advice to navigate the new visa landscape and explore their options under this law.
Little Congressional Oversight
The law passed with minimal debate:
- House Vote: 264-159 with 48 Democrats voting for the bill.
- Senate Vote: 64-35 with 12 Democratic votes.
- Final Passage: Since the Senate changed the bill, the House had to vote again before Trump signed it.
Critics say the quick passage ignored key legal and constitutional issues, especially around the federal attorney general and the executive branch’s power over foreign policy.
Constitutional Challenges
The biggest problem with the law is whether Congress can give state officials authority that’s always been the president and executive branch’s. These challenges may not exist in other legislative contexts, making this law particularly contentious.
Legal Issues:
- 8 U.S.C. 1253(d): Federal law requires the US attorney general to determine when a country is unreasonably delaying or denying deportations before visa restrictions are imposed.
- Separation of Powers: The US Constitution gives the president sole authority over foreign policy so allowing states to make visa decisions could violate this principle.
- Judicial Interpretation: Courts may interpret the law narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts and limit its impact and prevent state attorneys general from enforcing broad visa bans.Historical Precedents & Supreme Court Rulings
Legal experts point to several Supreme Court decisions that uphold the executive branch’s sole authority over foreign relations:
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936): Held that foreign policy decisions belong to the president.
- Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015): Ruled that Congress overstepped its authority when it tried to dictate passport policy on Jerusalem, and reinforced the executive branch’s foreign policy power.
Real-World Impact: A Domino Effect
Diplomatic Fallout and Retaliation
- If implemented, the law could rupture diplomatic ties with major countries like India, China and Russia.
- Countries affected by visa restrictions may retaliate by:
- Imposing visa bans on US travelers.
- Freezing trade agreements or limiting American businesses.
- Limiting student exchanges and academic partnerships with the US.
Impact on Businesses and Economy
- Tech, healthcare and education sectors rely on foreign workers and international students.
- Visa restrictions could:
- Cause labor shortages in key industries.
- Harm innovation in STEM fields.
Reduce foreign student enrollment, leading to financial losses for US universities
Legal Challenges Ahead
The law will likely face immediate legal challenges from:
- State Governments
- Blue states opposing the law may sue the federal government, arguing it unconstitutionally expands state power over immigration.
- Businesses & Universities
- Companies reliant on foreign workers may challenge the law as harmful to economic growth.
- Universities may argue that blocking student visas would hurt higher education institutions.
- Civil Rights & Legal Organizations
- Groups advocating for immigrant rights may file lawsuits to overturn provisions that violate constitutional rights and due process.
The law is unconstitutional and will face legal challenges. Allowing state-level officials to make foreign policy decisions would set a bad precedent.
5 Things to Know About the Laken Riley Act
1. Weakened Executive Authority Over Immigration Policy
- The bill would hinder the federal government’s ability to control immigration policy no matter who’s in the White House.* It gives states broad standing to sue the federal government over various immigration-related issues:
- Visa policy decisions
- Detention and release practices
- Individual immigration case decisions
- This would lead to continuous legal battles between states and the federal government, making it impossible for any administration to implement effective immigration policies.
- The threat of lawsuits would discourage future administrations from introducing new immigration measures altogether, effectively crippling federal agencies tasked with immigration enforcement.
2. Creates Chaos in the Courts
- The bill bypasses established legal principles by allowing states to automatically sue over immigration policies.
- The constitutional principle of “standing” ensures courts only hear cases where real harm exists. This bill disregards that standard, allowing states to challenge federal policies even when they’re not directly affected.
- By flooding the courts with frivolous lawsuits:
- It diverts judicial resources from real legal disputes
- Causes delays in other court proceedings
- Undermines the Constitution’s intention to prevent judicial intervention in policymaking
- This will lead to confusion and gridlock in the immigration system.
3. Duplicates Existing Immigration Laws and Creates Unnecessary Detention
- The bill amends the “mandatory detention” provision of US immigration law to apply to undocumented individuals charged with, arrested for or convicted of any theft-related offense.
- DHS already has the authority to detain any undocumented individual in deportation proceedings, including those with criminal charges.
- What this bill does differently:
- Requires automatic detention without a bond hearing
- Takes away discretion from immigration judges, leading to indefinite detention without due process
- For example, an undocumented mom accused of shoplifting baby formula would be detained indefinitely, regardless of the circumstances or the minor nature of the alleged offense.
4. Raises Due Process and Civil Rights Concerns
- Under US law, even individuals charged with murder are entitled to a bail hearing. This bill would deny that same right to undocumented immigrants based on an arrest or charge.
- This:
- Violates basic principles of fairness and justice
- Risks imprisoning innocent people for extended periods before their cases are resolved
- Disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities which already face higher arrest rates* Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the American system, but this bill erases that principle by detaining based on suspicion not guilt.
5. Disrupts Criminal Prosecution and Law Enforcement
- If passed, the bill will require immigration authorities to detain individuals arrested for theft-related offenses, even if a criminal judge determines they’re not a flight risk or a danger to society.
- This will create problems for law enforcement and prosecutors because:
- Detained individuals may not be able to attend their criminal court hearings
- Prosecutors will struggle to bring cases to trial if defendants are in immigration custody
- Criminal proceedings will be disrupted, justice will not be served
- Many local law enforcement officials already face challenges coordinating with immigration authorities to ensure fair prosecution of criminal cases. This bill will add to those challenges and could result in cases being dismissed due to procedural issues.
The Bigger Picture: The Lousy Precedent of the Laken Riley Act
Beyond its immediate effects, this legislation sets a bad precedent by gutting constitutional protections and due process. It:
- Expands government detention powers with no judicial oversight
- Weaks the executive branch’s ability to enforce federal immigration policy
- Encourages states to intrusion in national immigration decisions through excessive litigation
- Fosters racial profiling and disproportionate targeting of marginalized communities
Rather than public safety, the Laken Riley Act uses a tragedy for political gain. Crime requires thoughtful, evidence-based policies—not reactive measures that trample civil rights and destabilize the legal system. Lawmakers should focus on solutions that uphold constitutional principles and actually keep communities safe for all.
Constitutional Flaws of the Laken Riley Act
The Laken Riley Act broadens mandatory detention for noncitizens. The law states:
- Noncitizens accused—but not convicted—of certain crimes, including minor offenses like theft or shoplifting, will be detained indefinitely.
- Mandatory detention applies to any noncitizen accused of a crime that results in serious bodily injury or death.
- State attorneys general can sue the federal government if an immigrant with uncertain status, who was paroled into the country, commits a crime that harms the state or its residents—physically or financially.
While the bill is meant to improve public safety, critics say it may have severe unintended consequences.
Due Process and Human Rights Concerns. Experts oppose the new law, warning it could gut basic legal protections and worsen the immigration system.
Anna Gallagher, CLINIC Executive Director:“Although the Laken Riley Act is meant to improve security, in reality it could seriously harm individuals, including those who have not committed any wrongdoing. As people of faith we are concerned about the harm this will inflict on already vulnerable individuals caught in the justice system. This law will violate due process and misallocate resources that should be used for the common good.”
The problem is mandatory detention:
- Ignores the presumption of innocence – Detaining individuals who have only been accused will lead to unjust incarceration of those who are later found innocent.
- Strains the system – Holding large numbers of individuals indefinitely will clog immigration courts, detention centers and local law enforcement.
- Harms families – Families will face separation and financial instability when individuals are detained without conviction.
Racial Profiling and Unjust Detentions
Karen Sullivan, CLINIC Advocacy Director:“Mandating indefinite detention of those accused of low-level crimes is unconstitutional, impractical and inhumane. It raises serious concerns about racial profiling and targeting of marginalized communities, since certain groups are disproportionately accused of crimes. The federal government has other enforcement tools, this is an unnecessary harsh approach that will lead to more injustices.”
Key concerns:
- Vulnerable populations – Immigrants, especially from racial and ethnic minority groups, will face increased scrutiny and accusations.
- Misuse – The broad detention powers will be exploited, leading to wrongful detentions and abuses.
- Escalation of fear and mistrust – The law will deter immigrants, including those with legal status, from reporting crimes or cooperating with law enforcement due to fear of detention.
ACLU Statement on the Vote
Sarah Mehta, ACLU border policy senior counsel:
“This is an extreme and regressive bill that would allow the largest expansion of mandatory detention in decades. It would target children, DREAMers, parents of U.S. citizens and other long-time members of their communities—many of whom ICE itself has found should not be detained.”
Mehta noted the bill doesn’t address the problems in the system. Instead it promotes unnecessary detention and fear in immigrant communities.
Legal and Political Ramifications
Another problem with the Laken Riley Act is the provision allowing state attorneys general to sue the federal government.
Sullivan noted that will:
- Deepen divisions – Immigration is already a contentious issue, this will further polarize state and federal authorities.* Takes resources away from real reform – Instead of addressing systemic immigration problems, states will focus on lawsuits against the federal government.
- Creates uneven enforcement – States will sue selectively, leading to differing application of immigration laws.
Meaningful Immigration Reform
We urge the government to focus on immigration policies that respect human dignity, legal fairness and community safety. Instead of punitive measures, we advocate for:
- Proportionate and humane enforcement – Detention should only be used when necessary not as a default response.
- Fair and efficient legal processes – Due process for all, fair and no delays.
- Safe and legal migration pathways – Opportunities for individuals to enter and stay in the U.S. lawfully, reducing unauthorized immigration.
“Rather than laws that harm and divide, we urge lawmakers to pass reforms that really enhance public safety while respecting the basic rights of all individuals,” Gallagher said.
Why This Law is Bad
- No Real Immigration Reform: The bill does nothing to fix the immigration process or the system. Instead it creates chaos and cruelty.
- Disproportionate and unjust consequences: Under this law a mom who stole formula and diapers to feed her newborn could be mandatorily detained. A victim of domestic violence who was accused of theft could be detained indefinitely for leaving an abusive partner.
- Costs to taxpayers: Mandatory detention comes with big price tags. Detaining thousands for minor infractions will strain public resources without improving public safety.
Why I Voted “No”
Listen to Rep. Chrissy Houlahan from Pennyslvania:
Why I voted ‘no’ on the Laken Riley Act
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, 6th Congressional District, explains why she couldn’t vote for the bill allowing deportation of those here illegally who have committed crimes.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Print this Page Share by Email
Philadelphia, January 25, 2025
Originally Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
On Monday, I was in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol as President Trump was sworn in as our 47th President. Many of his first executive orders imposed temporary constraints on those wanting to enter our country, reflecting what many Americans said they wanted when they voted in November.
I agree that our immigration system and borders are broken; they have been for decades, and people are right to be angry and frustrated. I am, too. They are right to blame politicians for inaction. I do, too. We need permanent laws and policies, not executive orders that get reversed with each new administration. One such proposed law before Congress is the Laken Riley Act.
Most of us of a certain age remember “I’m Just a Bill” from many Saturday mornings watching “Schoolhouse Rock!” It was a short and catchy song that provided a basic civics lesson on the complex process of how a bill becomes a law. In short, one chamber of Congress (the House or the Senate) drafts and debates a bill, passes it, and sends it over to the other chamber for debate and amending. Once a bill is amended and each chamber passes the same version of the bill, it goes to the president’s desk for signature and becomes law.
The Laken Riley Act — which deports those here illegally who are accused of committing a crime — was a missed opportunity to see the best of “Schoolhouse Rock!” in action.
The Laken Riley Act is one of six high-priority GOP bills written to address the deportation of those here illegally who have committed crimes. I voted “yes” on the other five, but “no” on this one. The big difference is that the Laken Riley Act, as written, is unconstitutional while the rest are not.
The five are: H.R. 2494, the Police Act; H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Security Act; H.R. 6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act; H.R. 6976, the Protect our Communities Act; and H.R. the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. These all include due process and require a conviction, not just an arrest, for deportation. The Laken Riley Act alone allows states to sue the federal government over immigration policies they don’t like. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 ruled this was unconstitutional.
Removing these two unconstitutional provisions from the Laken Act could have been simple and easy during the “Schoolhouse Rock!” back and forth amendment process. Unfortunately, when the bill was before the House, no amendments were allowed. When it went to the Senate, amendments were allowed, but none were accepted that would fix the fatal flaws.
This week, it came back to the House, where I once again voted “no.” It now goes to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it into law.
It won’t be long before this law is challenged in court as unconstitutional, further throwing immigration law into chaos and again delaying the implementation of needed immigration reform.
As a member of the House, who takes an oath every two years to uphold and defend the Constitution, I am obligated to vote against bills that violate that oath.
I understand why the idea of this bill is appealing to so many. But I encourage people to read past the headlines, to read the bill itself, or to read nonpartisan summaries of the bill. We can make real and lasting fixes to secure our border and fix our immigration system without sacrificing our values and needlessly trading away Constitutional protections.
Bills such as the bipartisan H.R. 3599, the Dignity Act, or the Senate’s bipartisan efforts led by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, and Kyrsten Sinema, S. 4361, the Border Act of 2024, were such efforts.
Lastly, although not a reason to vote against the bill, it’s important to note how expensive the Laken bill is — $27 billion in the first year — and how little debate that’s getting. Put in perspective, the entire annual budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is approximately $8 billion. If Congress is going to tell state and local governments what to do, we should also provide the money to do it.
Even in this polarized environment, there is room for bipartisan, effective, and pragmatic legislative work. This is what my community — red and blue — sent me to Washington to achieve. I’m not giving up on that now.
Chrissy Houlahan is an Air Force veteran, engineer, entrepreneur, educator, and nonprofit leader. She is serving her fourth consecutive term representing the people of Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District, which encompasses Chester County and southern Berks County. Houlahan is the first female veteran named as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Military Personnel Subcommittee, and is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Conclusion: A Law That’s Broke
The Laken Riley Act aims to enhance immigration enforcement but rises serious constitutional issues by transferring key authority from the executive branch to state officials.
- Courts will review and challenge the law.
- Businesses, universities and states will seek injunctions to block enforcement.
- If unconstitutional, the decision will affirm the president’s sole authority over foreign policy and prevent states from imposing independent immigration restrictions in the future.
With lawsuits looming and diplomatic tensions escalating, the fate of the Laken Riley Act is uncertain making it one of the most controversial immigration bills in recent history.
The Laken Riley Act is not a solution—it’s a step backwards. Instead of fixing the system it will detain thousands of individuals including families and long-time residents for no good reason. The fight for justice continues and it’s up to all of us to stop policies that harm human rights and due process.