Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for cons…
This bill bars the Secretary of Homeland Security from detaining any individual in a holding room for more than 12 hours. It defines a holding room as a secure area used for temporary confinement prior to intake processing, appointments, release, transfers, or removal-related transportation.
Humanitarian limits versus enforcement flexibility and public safety concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, single-subject substantive prohibition (a 12-hour maximum for detention in defined holding rooms) but is sparsely drafted regarding mechanisms, implementation, fiscal effects, interaction with existing statutory authorities, edge cases, and accountability.
This bill bars the Secretary of Homeland Security from detaining any individual in a holding room for more than 12 hours.
It defines a holding room as a secure area used for temporary confinement prior to intake processing, appointments, release, transfers, or removal-related transportation.
Very narrow and administratively clear but politically sensitive, lacks compromises and funding, and would face Senate procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, single-subject substantive prohibition (a 12-hour maximum for detention in defined holding rooms) but is sparsely drafted regarding mechanisms, implementation, fiscal effects, interaction with existing statutory authorities, edge cases, and accountability.
Humanitarian limits versus enforcement flexibility and public safety concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Humanitarian limits versus enforcement flexibility and public safety concerns
Likely views the bill positively as a targeted reform to prevent prolonged temporary confinement and protect basic dignity.
However, progressives would note the bill lacks explicit oversight, penalties, or independent monitoring and may press for stronger enforcement and broader coverage.
Supports the bill's goal of limiting unnecessary short-term confinement while seeking operational clarity.
Centrists will look for reasonable exceptions, implementation timelines, and funding to prevent disruption at processing points.
Likely views the bill as an operational constraint on immigration enforcement that could reduce enforcement flexibility.
Conservatives will emphasize risks to public safety, border control, and the need for exemptions for security situations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and administratively clear but politically sensitive, lacks compromises and funding, and would face Senate procedural obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Humanitarian limits versus enforcement flexibility and public safety concerns
Very narrow and administratively clear but politically sensitive, lacks compromises and funding, and would face Senate procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, single-subject substantive prohibition (a 12-hour maximum for detention in defined holding rooms) but is sparsely drafted regarding mechanisms, i…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.