What’s in the Laken Riley Act?

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law the Laken Riley Act, which is designed to cede some federal immigration enforcement power to the states and usher in a harsher new era of immigration detention.

Trump's signing comes after the House gave the measure final approval on Wednesday with support from 217 Republicans and 46 Democrats. It previously drew bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled Senate, with 12 Democratic Senators voting yes on Monday. Senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, both Democrats, co-sponsored the Senate version.

The measure’s lead provisions would force immigration officers to arrest and detain immigrants in the country unlawfully who were arrested or admitted to minor theft of $100 or more, assaulting a police officer, or “any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury.” The bill would also greatly expand the power that state attorney generals have over federal immigration policy, allowing state officials to sue the federal government to have specific immigrants detained and force the State Department to block visas from countries that won’t take back individuals being deported.

The 8-page bill is named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last year in Athens, Georgia by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant who was in the country unlawfully and had been previously apprehended by Border Patrol and released. Ibarra was sentenced in November to life in prison without parole for Riley’s killing.

Here’s a look at what’s in the bill.

Mandatory custody for immigrants suspected of theft

The Laken Riley Act into law changes how the federal government handles immigrants who are in the country unlawfully and suspected of stealing something worth $100 or more, a relatively minor infraction that would include cases of shoplifting. The bill requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security “to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes,” meaning immigration officers would be required to arrest and detain those people.

Currently, immigration officials use their discretion to first detain people with violent criminal records. But the law would override that discretion. “This bill hinders the work ICE does day to day,” said Jason Houser, who was chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023. The federal government has enough funding to pay for housing about 41,000 people in immigration detention. Houser estimates that the bill would add another 20,000 people to immigration detention and would require federal agencies to divert manpower from finding the most violent and dangerous offenders. “If passed, you will see less individuals in detention who are violent convicted criminals than you see today.”

The bill also impacts legal immigration. The legislation instructs Customs and Border Protection officers to consider a person “inadmissible” to the U.S. if they are arrested for, or admit to, committing acts that constitute theft or shoplifting. That would mean someone with a valid visa to be in the U.S. could be removed before they had a chance to defend themselves from such charges in front of a judge.

State attorneys general could sue to have immigrants detained

The law gives state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government over its handling of undocumented people in its custody. The state officials would be able to demand a court instruct immigration agents to track down and arrest people it had released from immigration detention. “It allows state attorneys general to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security for injunctive relief if immigration actions such as parole, violation of detention requirements, or other policy failures harm that state or its citizens,” said Rep. Mike Collins, the Republican congressman from Georgia who introduced the bill in the House.

For most of U.S. history, courts have given the President and the federal government broad authority over immigration decisions. This law reverses that, giving state attorneys general the ability to override immigration decisions made by federal officials. Critics of the Laken Riley Act argue that some of its supporters haven’t properly considered the sweeping ramifications of that change. “We don’t think it makes sense to invert our system of federal supremacy and give state attorneys general the power to superintend the decisions of individual line officers working at ICE and CBP and decisions all the way up to the Secretary of State,” says Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

State officials could demand the State Department stop issuing visas from countries that don’t accept people being deported

The law also gives states power to insert themselves into U.S. foreign policy. One reason immigrants found in the country illegally aren’t deported is because their home country won’t accept them. Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil, India, Russia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo are among the countries currently unwilling to accept people being deported from the U.S.

Supporters of the bill want state attorneys general to be able to sue the State Department to require no U.S. visas be issued for any country refusing to accept the deportation of their nationals.  “You’re putting the immigration process, the visa process in the hands of the courts and the states,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

Who supported the bill in Congress?

The bill ultimately passed the House with unanimous support from Republicans, and the backing of 46 of 215 Democrats. In the Senate, 12 Democrats joined all Senate Republicans to move the bill forward. In addition to Senators Fetterman and Gallego co-sponsoring the bill, other Democratic Senators supported the bill, including Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona, Gary Peters of Michigan, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and both of Georgia's Senators, Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff. The Senate passed the bill with a few changes that expanded the crimes that would require a person to be detained by immigration authorities to include assaulting a police officer, or “any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury.”