The Laken Riley Act: A New Era in U.S. Immigration Enforcement

The enactment of the Laken Riley Act in January 2025 marked a substantial shift in the enforcement landscape of U.S. immigration law. Catalyzed by the tragic killing of University of Georgia student Laken Riley, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant, the law has become a flashpoint in debates over immigration enforcement, state sovereignty, and constitutional protections.

At its core, the Laken Riley Act mandates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain noncitizens who are charged, not necessarily convicted, with specific crimes. These include but are not limited to burglary, theft, shoplifting, larceny, assault on a law enforcement officer, and any crime categorized as violent. This marks a departure from prior enforcement guidelines that allowed for discretion based on prosecutorial priority and humanitarian factors. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the federal government already possesses authority for mandatory detention of certain noncitizens who have committed enumerated crimes. However, the Laken Riley Act expands this authority by mandating detention based solely on criminal charges, not convictions, which invites significant constitutional scrutiny.

The due process implications are substantial. Courts have consistently held that civil detention must comply with due process requirements, as outlined in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), where the Supreme Court emphasized that indefinite detention of noncitizens raises serious constitutional concerns. Further, in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), the Court ruled that noncitizens do not have an automatic right to bond hearings during prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), but it did not foreclose challenges on constitutional grounds. The expansion of mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act invites fresh challenges under the Fifth Amendment, particularly when detention is triggered by mere allegations without adjudicated guilt.

Another novel provision in the Act empowers states to sue federal agencies, particularly DHS, when they allege injury resulting from the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws. This provision attempts to override principles of sovereign immunity and the federal government’s plenary authority over immigration as affirmed in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). In Arizona, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of an Arizona state law on the grounds that federal immigration law preempted state action. The Laken Riley Act’s grant of standing to states to sue the federal government may run afoul of this doctrine, and the courts will almost certainly be called upon to determine whether this provision exceeds constitutional boundaries or impermissibly alters standing doctrine established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

The practical implications for immigrant communities are immediate and profound. Legal service providers are reporting increased anxiety among undocumented clients who fear detention following any police interaction, even for minor, non-violent offenses. This climate may deter individuals from cooperating with law enforcement, serving as witnesses, or reporting crimes, thus undermining community policing efforts and public safety. The Act may also complicate state and local sanctuary policies, which aim to limit entanglement with federal immigration enforcement. Jurisdictions such as California and New York have codified non-cooperation policies through statutes like California’s Government Code § 7284.6, which restricts local law enforcement from using resources to investigate, detain, or arrest individuals for immigration enforcement purposes. These jurisdictions may find themselves in direct conflict with federal mandates under the Laken Riley Act, raising intergovernmental disputes that could escalate to the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Laken Riley Act represents a new frontier in federal immigration enforcement, one that mandates broader and more aggressive use of detention, expands state standing to sue federal agencies, and shifts the enforcement balance toward more punitive measures. While the Act may achieve its intended goal of increasing the detention and removal of certain noncitizens, it also poses serious legal and constitutional questions. These include potential violations of due process, federalism, and longstanding principles of prosecutorial discretion. Immigration attorneys, civil rights advocates, and state officials alike should prepare for a protracted legal battle over the scope and validity of this controversial new law.