H.R.1821 - Help Ensure Legal Detainers Act; HELD Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 1821, also known as the Help Ensure Legal Detainers Act or HELD Act, aims to deny federal funding to states and local governments that have laws, policies, or procedures preventing their law enforcement officials from complying with immigration detainers issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill seeks to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities in detaining individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. This is to allow DHS to take custody of these individuals.
The bill specifies that states and political subdivisions must respond to immigration notices and maintain custody of aliens for up to 48 hours to allow for transfer to DHS custody. A key provision allows political subdivisions within non-compliant states to apply for direct receipt of federal funds if they are otherwise eligible.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 4, 2025, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Expected Effects
The HELD Act, if enacted, would likely lead to increased cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. States and localities that currently have sanctuary policies or laws limiting cooperation with ICE would face significant financial pressure to change their policies.
This could result in more aliens being detained and potentially deported, impacting communities with large immigrant populations. The Act could also lead to legal challenges based on states' rights and potential constitutional concerns.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced national security by facilitating the detention and removal of aliens who may pose a threat.
- Increased public safety by potentially reducing crime committed by aliens unlawfully present in the United States.
- Streamlined immigration enforcement through better coordination between federal and local authorities.
- Potential cost savings for the federal government by shifting some of the burden of detaining aliens to state and local entities (though this could increase costs for those entities).
- Could incentivize states and localities to comply with federal immigration laws, promoting a more uniform national policy.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential erosion of trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, leading to decreased reporting of crimes.
- Increased risk of racial profiling and discrimination against minority groups.
- Financial strain on state and local governments that must comply with the detainer requests, potentially diverting resources from other essential services.
- Possible legal challenges based on the Tenth Amendment (states' rights) and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures).
- Could lead to the detention of individuals who are ultimately found to be legally present in the United States, resulting in unjust deprivations of liberty.
Constitutional Alignment
The constitutionality of the HELD Act is debatable. Proponents may argue that it falls under the federal government's power to regulate immigration and enforce federal laws, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, which grants Congress the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.
Opponents could argue that the Act violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, by coercing states into enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures could be invoked if detentions are deemed unlawful or based on insufficient cause.
The Supreme Court has addressed similar issues in cases like Printz v. United States, which limited the federal government's ability to compel state and local law enforcement to enforce federal mandates. The HELD Act's constitutionality would likely depend on how the courts balance federal authority over immigration with states' rights and individual liberties.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).