Polixxy
← Back to bills

H.R. 29 · 119th Congress

Laken Riley Act

Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10] (R-GA) · Introduced · 54 cosponsors

House VoteImmigration
Progress
50%
1
Introduced
A bill is formally introduced by a lawmaker; it is assigned an ID and sent to committee.
2
Committee
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
3
Reported
After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.
4
House Vote
The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.
5
Senate Vote
The bill has passed the full Senate.
6
Passed Congress
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill; it moves to the President for final approval.
7
Sent to President
The bill has been sent to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or let a ten-day clock decide.
8
Became Law
The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Latest action

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.

· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026

Committees

Judiciary Committee

What this stage means

The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.

Why this matters

A majority vote by the full chamber is required for the bill to keep moving toward becoming law.

What can happen next

The bill goes to the Senate, which can pass it, amend it, or never take it up.

Study this bill

AP Gov
Unit 1 · Foundations of American DemocracyUnit 2 · Interactions Among Branches of GovernmentUnit 3 · Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The constitutional question

Two questions: does mandatory federal detention of noncitizens arrested for (not convicted of) theft-related crimes satisfy Fifth Amendment due process — and can Congress hand states standing to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions, inverting the usual rule that immigration is exclusively federal?

The strongest case for

The bill responds to a concrete failure: a person previously arrested was released and went on to commit a murder that a detainer would have prevented. Detention here applies only to people already removable under immigration law who are then arrested for additional crimes — a narrow, high-risk category. Immigration detention has always been civil and preventive, not punitive, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld mandatory detention categories. Giving state attorneys general standing merely lets the governments that bear the fiscal and public-safety costs of non-enforcement get a federal court to review whether the executive is following the law Congress wrote.

The strongest case against

Mandatory detention on arrest — including for shoplifting allegations — means a police officer's charging decision, not a judge's finding, triggers indefinite confinement with no bond hearing; arrest is an accusation, and due process exists precisely for the accused. The state-standing provisions are a structural time bomb: fifty attorneys general empowered to sue over individual enforcement judgments invites forum-shopped injunctions running national immigration policy from single district courts — a tool both parties will regret when the White House changes hands. And because detention capacity is finite, forced detention of low-level arrestees crowds out detention of genuinely dangerous people.

Foundational documents in play

  • U.S. Constitution

    The Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee is the core objection to mandatory detention triggered by arrest rather than conviction.

  • Federalist No. 51

    The bill's grant of standing for state attorneys general to sue federal immigration officials rewires the federal-state balance Madison described.

Organizations supporting

Organizations opposing

This has happened before

The 118th Congress passed the same bill in the House (H.R. 7511) in March 2024; it died without a Senate vote. After the 2024 election flipped the Senate, the 119th Congress made it Public Law 119-1 within weeks — via the Senate companion (S. 5) rather than this House bill, which is why H.R. 29 itself shows only House passage. Elections, not arguments, changed the outcome; and companion bills show how the 'same law' can travel under two numbers.

Practice FRQ

Concept Application. "A federal law requires detention of noncitizens arrested for certain offenses and allows state attorneys general to sue federal officials over immigration enforcement decisions." (A) Describe the constitutional principle of federalism. (B) Explain how the law changes the traditional federal-state balance in immigration. (C) Explain one due process concern raised by detention based on arrest rather than conviction.

Sources: www.congress.gov · www.congress.gov · www.congress.gov

Action history

Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 14 total.

  1. Senate

    Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 10.

  2. Senate

    Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

  3. Senate

    Received in the Senate.

  4. House

    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H53-61)

  5. House

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 29.

  6. House

    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

  7. House

    POSTPONED 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.

  8. House

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H61)

  9. House

    Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)

  10. House

    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 159 (Roll no. 6). (text: CR H53-54)

  11. House

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  12. House

    Introduced in House

  13. House

    Introduced in House

  14. House

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.