Laken Riley Act

U.S. Congress · HR29 · Floor

Progression

Timing in context

Primary sponsor's contributions received (same period)

Adjacency in time is shown for context; it is not evidence of cause. Funded ≠ false — see the methodology.

What the bill says

HR29 · U.S. Congress · Floor

Introduced 2025-01-03. Latest action: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.

View on Congress.gov →

Summary (plain-language)

Laken Riley Act This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals ( aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States.

Sponsors

Text versions

  • Introduced in House — 2025-01-03 — XML
  • Engrossed in House — 2025-01-07 — XML
  • Placed on Calendar Senate — 2025-02-10 — XML

What analysts say

No nonpartisan analysis on file for this measure yet.

What politicians say

No linked claims or utterances yet — no one on record has cited this measure to justify a public argument.

Action History

DateAction
2025-02-10Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.
2025-02-06Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
2025-01-08Received in the Senate.
2025-01-07Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H53-61)
2025-01-07DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 29.
2025-01-07The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
2025-01-07POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 29, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
2025-01-07Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H61)
2025-01-07Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
2025-01-07On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)
2025-01-07Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-01-03Introduced in House
2025-01-03Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

← Back to legislation