hero image

Overview of the Laken Riley Act and Its Potential Constitutional Challenges

January 16, 2025


In January 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act, a bill aimed at intensifying measures to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. This legislation is expected to have a profound impact on immigrant communities in the United States and has already sparked concerns about its potential constitutional implications.

The bill was introduced following a highly publicized incident in Georgia involving Laken Riley, a college student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant previously charged with minor crimes but not detained. The legislation mandates that undocumented immigrants charged with certain misdemeanors, such as theft or burglary, must be immediately detained, with the Secretary of Homeland Security required to issue detention orders. Under this bill, undocumented immigrants can be detained even before a final conviction is reached. Additionally, parole release would only be granted under extraordinary humanitarian circumstances, and state governments are given the authority to file civil lawsuits against federal agencies that fail to enforce these provisions.

While the Laken Riley Act seeks to strengthen immigration enforcement, it raises significant constitutional questions, particularly regarding due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to all persons in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. Courts have consistently held that this protection applies not only to citizens but also to non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants. By mandating automatic detention of undocumented immigrants based solely on criminal charges—before any conviction—the bill risks denying individuals the opportunity to defend themselves and violates the presumption of innocence. This lack of procedural fairness could lead courts to conclude that the bill violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, may also come into play. Automatically detaining individuals for misdemeanor offenses such as theft or burglary could be viewed as disproportionate punishment, particularly when compared to how U.S. citizens are treated for similar offenses. Courts could determine that such a blanket policy of detention imposes a punishment that is excessive and inconsistent with the severity of the offense, thereby violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Another potential constitutional challenge arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. The Laken Riley Act treats undocumented immigrants differently from U.S. citizens who commit the same misdemeanors, which could be interpreted as discriminatory enforcement. In the landmark case Plyler v. Doe (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that denying public education to the children of undocumented immigrants violated the Equal Protection Clause, affirming that non-citizens are entitled to constitutional protections. If courts view the Laken Riley Act as disproportionately targeting undocumented immigrants based on their immigration status, it could be struck down as unconstitutional.

Several key Supreme Court precedents offer insight into how the courts may evaluate the Laken Riley Act. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite detention of immigrants violates constitutional protections unless there is a reasonable timeframe for deportation proceedings. This precedent underscores the importance of limiting the duration of detention to avoid constitutional violations. Similarly, Plyler v. Doe affirmed that constitutional protections apply to all persons within U.S. borders, including undocumented immigrants, reinforcing the notion that immigration status does not strip individuals of their fundamental rights.

If the Laken Riley Act is enacted, it is highly likely that constitutional challenges will follow, particularly concerning due process, equal protection, and proportionality of punishment. Given the scope and automatic nature of detention provisions, courts may find that the bill violates procedural fairness and imposes discriminatory enforcement measures. The likelihood of the bill reaching the U.S. Supreme Court is significant, and any decision on its constitutionality could have a lasting impact on immigration law and policy.

In conclusion, while the Laken Riley Act aims to address public safety concerns by intensifying immigration enforcement, it raises critical constitutional issues that cannot be overlooked. The tension between national security priorities and individual rights protections will likely be at the heart of future legal debates surrounding this legislation. As courts have consistently ruled in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of immigrants, it remains to be seen whether this bill can withstand judicial scrutiny or if it will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.


Disclaimer

The information provided herein is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of case names, rulings, and legal interpretations, this content is not a substitute for professional legal counsel. For specific legal guidance related to immigration laws or constitutional challenges, please consult a licensed attorney familiar with your jurisdiction. Legal outcomes may vary based on the facts and circumstances of each case, as well as evolving legislation and court decisions. The Law Office of Hong-min Jun assumes no liability for any actions taken based on the information presented here.