Lawfare Archive: Nayna Gupta on the Laken Riley Act

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Lawfare Archive: Nayna Gupta on the Laken Riley Act
Date: February 14, 2026
Host: Anna Hecke (Associate Editor, Lawfare)
Guest: Nayna Gupta (Director of Policy, American Immigration Council)

---

Overview

This episode explores the Laken Riley Act—the first piece of legislation signed by President Trump in his second term—focusing on its origins, legislative intent, provisions, and sweeping consequences for the U.S. immigration system. Anna Hecke and Nayna Gupta dissect the serious implications for due process, law enforcement discretion, and immigrant communities, while also considering the Act’s broader political and legal ramifications.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background and Introduction of the Laken Riley Act

• Purpose & Timing:

  • Introduced in March 2024 by Rep. Mike Collins (GA) and Sen. Katie Britt (AL).
  • First signed law of Trump’s second term, intended as a “border safety” bill, but actually targets immigrants arrested, charged, or admitting certain crimes—even minor ones.
  • Bill quickly moved through Congress early in the new session (03:16).

• Political Symbolism:

  • "What the Laken Riley Act signals is a disproportionate focus by the Trump administration on rhetoric that criminalizes all immigrants..." – Nayna Gupta (05:38)

2. Origins and Naming

• Who was Laken Riley?
  • A Georgia resident murdered by an undocumented Venezuelan man, who had prior low-level charges not flagged by immigration authorities, provoking public outcry and political reaction (04:16).

3. Core Provisions of the Act

• Mandatory Detention of Noncitizens:

  • Any undocumented individual arrested, charged, or convicted of listed crimes (e.g., shoplifting, burglary, larceny) faces mandatory detention with no bond hearing.
  • Vastly broadens the government’s ability to detain, even for low-level offenses (07:21).
  • "Mandatory detention under immigration law means you don't get the right to a bond hearing. You don't get to go to a judge and say, look, I'm not a public safety threat…" – Nayna Gupta (07:21)

• Empowering State Attorneys General:

  • Section 3 allows state AGs to sue in federal court to mandate federal immigration actions, including opposing visa issuance for entire countries (10:05).
  • "This is unprecedented standing in federal court." – Nayna Gupta (11:40)

4. Scope and Systemic Impact

• Impact on ICE and Enforcement:

  • ICE projected to require several new 10,000-bed facilities; current capacity full at ~40,000 beds.
  • Would force ICE to release some detainees deemed higher risk simply due to lack of space, undermining public safety priorities (13:31).
  • "In the early days…estimates were that ICE would need to open multiple facilities with 10,000 beds each…" – Nayna Gupta (13:31)

• Loss of Discretion for Law Enforcement:

  • The Act strips ICE and judges of discretion. Even those with decades of community presence and nonviolent histories could face indefinite detention (11:40, 16:09).

• Federal-State Tensions:

  • Provokes conflicts with sanctuary jurisdictions and undermines their protective policies.
  • Local law enforcement may be compelled or overridden by federal mandates (21:12).
  • "There are dozens of states…with enacted sanctuary provisions…to protect people with low-level arrests…from being subject to indefinite detention and deportation." – Nayna Gupta (21:12)

5. Due Process and Legal Concerns

• Denial of Bond Hearings:
  • Immigrants affected cannot return to state court to contest original charges while being held. Even dropped or unfounded charges can result in long-term imprisonment (16:09).
  • Supreme Court precedent (Demore v. Kim) makes legal challenges to this model difficult (28:02).

6. Implementation and Immediate Effects

• Changes in ICE Practices:
  • Surge in non-targeted, community, and worksite raids; any noncitizen with prior minor infractions may face immediate detention (23:24).
  • "If they find out that someone…has an arrest from 30 years ago for shoplifting…that person can immediately be subject to mandatory detention." – Nayna Gupta (23:24)

7. Connected Legislation and Policy Moves

• Impact on Congressional and Executive Priorities:

  • Laken Riley Act bolsters Trump’s mass deportation and expedited removal agenda, aligns with ongoing and proposed executive orders threatening to withdraw funding from non-cooperating (sanctuary) cities (24:39).

• Impending “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act”:

  • Would cut all federal funding to jurisdictions serving undocumented people, potentially affecting broad public programs (24:39).

8. Litigation & Constitutional Issues

• Legal Challenges:
  • The standing provision for state AGs may face constitutional tests.
  • Mandatory detention expansion could be contested, but prior Supreme Court deference to the executive makes outcomes uncertain (28:02, 30:00).

9. Data on Affected Immigrants

• Low Risk, High Impact:
  • Fewer than 1 in 10 undocumented immigrants have any criminal record, and the majority of offenses are minor (05:38, 31:23).
  • Undocumented immigrants pay $40 billion annually in federal taxes; make up substantial segments of workforce (31:23).

10. Closing Thoughts and Warnings

• On the Act’s Efficacy and Risks:
  • Gupta emphasizes that using rare, high-profile crimes to justify sweeping punitive policy undermines safety, due process, and public resources (37:26).
  • "Every American deserves to feel safe…But we have to be vigilant of elected officials using individual acts as a way to trick the American public by preying upon fear into supporting policies that don't actually make us safer and that waste resources unnecessarily." – Nayna Gupta (37:26)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Mandatory detention under immigration law means you don't get the right to a bond hearing. You don't get to go to a judge and say, look, I'm not a public safety threat. I should get to fight my case at home." – Gupta (07:21)

• "What the Laken Riley Act signals is a disproportionate focus…criminalizing all immigrants…" – Gupta (05:38)

• "Section three specifically of the Lake and Riley act authorizes state attorneys general to go to federal court to ask a federal judge for an order that requires the government to take certain actions in five areas of immigration law." – Gupta (10:05)

• "It gives state attorneys general standing to seek these orders in federal court. ...This is unprecedented standing in federal court." – Gupta (11:40)

• "It could be that the charge…they're actually not guilty…or…the prosecutor drops the charges…But that won't matter. That person will already be subject to indefinite mandatory detention." – Gupta (16:09)

• "There are dozens of states…with enacted sanctuary provisions…to protect people with low level arrests…from being subject to indefinite detention and deportation." – Gupta (21:12)

• "We have to be vigilant of elected officials using individual acts as a way to trick the American public by preying upon fear into supporting policies that don't actually make us safer…" – Gupta (37:26)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:16 – How and why the bill was introduced
• 04:16 – Who Laken Riley was
• 05:38 – Symbolism and political context
• 07:21 – Provisions and expansion of mandatory detention
• 10:05 – Attorney general powers and standing
• 13:31 – Impact on ICE capacity and funding
• 16:09 – Due process and risk of indefinite detention
• 21:12 – State/local reactions, conflict with sanctuary jurisdictions
• 23:24 – Early implementation and ICE raids
• 24:39 – Connection to Trump’s executive orders, further legislative threats
• 28:02 – Litigation prospects, constitutional questions
• 31:23 – Contributions of undocumented immigrants; legislative context
• 34:12 – Implementation focus & concerns over indiscriminate sweeps
• 37:26 – Final warning about policy motivated by fear vs. evidence

---

Final Takeaways

The Laken Riley Act dramatically expands the federal government’s detention authority over noncitizens—often for minor infractions—in ways that override discretion, strain resources, and challenge due process norms. Its real intent and effects are more about criminalizing immigrants en masse and empowering certain states in federal immigration policymaking than about true border security. Gupta warns of the risks of policies that trade on fear rather than facts and calls for smarter, fairer approaches that balance safety with justice and proportionality.

Transcript

[Marissa Wong]

Need real insight from industrial data versit with a single source of everything and get the best outcomes. Transform the Everyday with Siemens BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. I'm Marissa Wong, intern at Lawfare with an episode from the Lawfare archive for February 14, 2026 this past summer, Immigration Customs and Enforcement issued an internal memoir that drastically expanded the administration's ability to detain undocumented immigrants. The mandatory detention policy has since flooded the courts with habeas corpus cases, as ICE and Customs and Border patrol has detained 73,000 people in the past year in many cases without even as much as a court hearing. For today's archive, I chose an episode from February 7, 2020 in which Naina Gupta joined Lafair to discuss the Lakin Riley act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Trump in his second term that requires the detention of non citizens without bond if they are arrested for, charged with, or admit to committing certain crimes. Gupta and Bauer explained why the act was introduced, what the act means for the immigration detention system under the Trump administration, and more.

[Anna Hecke]

It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Anna Hecke, associate Editor of Communications at lawfare, with Neena Gupta, director of Policy at the American Immigration Council.

[Neena Gupta]

Although, you know, keeping somebody detained without access to a bond hearing would absolutely violate basic due process in the criminal legal system. The courts have allowed the use of this kind of mandatory detention in a case called Damore vs Cannon.

[Anna Hecke]

Today we're talking about the Lake and Riley act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Trump in his second term and its impact on the immigration detention system. So before we discuss what is actually included in the Lake and Riley act, can you give listeners a explanation of when it was first introduced and why?

[Neena Gupta]

Yeah, happy to. So the Lake and Riley act was first introduced in March of 2024 by Congressman Collins from Georgia, Mike Collins, and Senator Katie Britt from Alabama. The thing to know is that the bill was originally introduced essentially as a messaging bill for the Republicans when they were in the minority in Congress as a way to signal their support of Trump's immigration agenda during the election cycle. And then the bill was reintroduced right at the beginning of the new congressional session by those same members of Congress. And within just a few weeks, that law was passed in both chambers and, as you all know, was signed by the President into law.

[Anna Hecke]

Lake and Riley, obviously, is a name of a young woman. Can you give listeners an explanation of who that was and why the act was named after her?

[Neena Gupta]

Sure. Lake and Riley was a resident of Georgia. She was murdered by a Venezuelan man who'd entered the United States without authorization, who had crossed at the US Mexico border. And prior to the violent act that he committed against Lake and Riley, he had been charged with two lower level offenses, one related to shoplifting and another about operating a vehicle. The theft arrest was in Georgia, the other was in New York City. But neither of those were sufficient to flag for immigration authorities his non citizen unlawful status, nor that he would pose a threat to public safety. And so when the violent act was committed against Lake and Riley, there was outcry, particularly from Republican politicians, about the fact that the immigration system hadn't picked up the fact that this person was such a safety threat in time to save Blake and Riley's life.

[Anna Hecke]

What was the symbolism of this piece of immigration legislation being the first piece of legislation President Trump signed in his second term?

[Neena Gupta]

Look, I mean, we've heard President Trump, both on the campaign trail and since he's been in the White House, talk about targeting criminal immigrants. His framing of his immigration agenda is one that focuses on on criminals like the Venezuelan man who killed Lake and Riley. The reality, of course, is that what we're seeing is a sweeping in of hundreds of thousands of people who have no criminal record and pose no public safety threat. We know that less than 1 in 10 undocumented people in the United States even has a criminal record. And those who do mostly have traffic violations or violations of immigration law. In other words, the man who murdered Lake and Riley was very much an exception in terms of the millions of people who are here in our country contributing richly. And what the Lake and Riley act signals is a disproportionate focus by the Trump administration on rhetoric that criminalizes all immigrants. And that takes a system that already has many mechanisms in place to hold violent offenders accountable on top of what the criminal legal system already does. The Trump administration is saying, no, we're going to go even further, and we don't care if we sweep in millions of people who are not at all a threat and have no record and who contribute richly because of this, of this individual act that garnered public attention.

[Anna Hecke]

And what does the bill purport to do? Like, what do the Crafters of the bill say the bill is going to do well.

[Neena Gupta]

First, I should just say up top that this bill was messaged by its original co sponsors as a border safety bill, as a way to stop people like the Venezuelan man who murdered Lake and Riley from entering our country. The reality is the bill has absolutely nothing to do with the US Mexico border. It is a bill that's focused on arresting immigrants in the interior of the United States and about giving attorney generals the authority to dictate federal immigration policy. In practice, what the bill does is it first says that any non citizen who's here without lawful status, who's even just arrested, charged or convicted of shoplifting, burglary or larceny, will be subject to mandatory detention. Mandatory detention under immigration law means you don't get the right to a bond hearing. You don't get to go to a judge and say, look, I'm not a public safety threat. I should get to fight my case at home. It's worth noting in the criminal legal system, right, the young man who killed the insurance company executive, right, that was out in the open. He murdered somebody. He still got a bail here. The bail was denied, but he got that hearing. In the immigration system, over 60% of people are subject to mandatory detention. And what the Lake and Riley act says in part one is that now we're going to extend that to include people who are merely arrested and arrested for low level offenses. And it sweeps all of those folks in and essentially forces immigration authorities to prioritize people with low level arrests for detention, rather than allowing them to focus on people who might actually pose a serious public safety threat.

[Anna Hecke]

This detention, is it in immigration facilities run by ICE and DHS or in state and local jails and prisons?

[Neena Gupta]

No, this is absolutely detention in the federal immigration system. So these are folks who might get accused of or charged or arrested in a state system for a low level offense who are then subject to incarceration in the immigration system by federal authorities. In other words, these are folks who would sit in facilities that are primarily run by private prison companies who get contracts from the federal government to house federal immigrant detainees.

[Anna Hecke]

You mentioned that this piece of legislation gives state governments the authority to dictate federal immigration policy. Can you expand on that and say how it gives them this authority?

[Neena Gupta]

Yes. So Section three specifically of the Lake and Riley act authorizes state attorneys general to go to federal court to ask a federal judge for an order that requires the government to take certain actions in five areas of immigration law. In other words, Ken Paxton, in Texas could go to a federal judge and say, I want to order the United States government to do the following and he could get that order. It gives him standing, it gives state attorneys general standing to seek these orders in federal court. And the five areas of policy this covers includes decisions as small as individual as ICE's decision to release somebody from immigration detention or to grant humanitarian parole to somebody fleeing persecution. But it also goes as far as to let a state attorney general sue the US Government for deciding to issue visas to an entire country that otherwise won't accept deported people. In other words, countries like India or Venezuela that have traditionally not accepted deported people. A state attorney general could get an order that says the U.S. government has to stop issuing visas to everybody from China, India and Venezuela, people with visas.

[Anna Hecke]

Just to clarify that for the listeners, would that include people on work visas like H1B visas, or is it just people on the same type of visa or green card that the person who was arrested was on?

[Neena Gupta]

No, this would include any kind of visa, including the visas that are used for those kinds of lawful programs and pathways. It could include non immigrant visas, like tourist visas. It could be as sweeping as that. In other words, this is unprecedented standing in federal court. Now, there's a question as to whether this would withstand constitutional litigation, whether or not this oversteps what the Constitution says about standing in federal court. But that would have to be challenged, you know, in the courts. And you know, the other point to mention here is that from a law enforcement perspective, again, this is another way to strip discretion and line level authority from immigration enforcement agents. They make decisions working in a universe of constrained resources. If there's one person that poses a public safety threat and has a more serious violent record, they might want to keep that person in detention rather than waste resources, let's say on a single mother who's been living here for 20 years, undocumented, who is accused of shoplifting diapers for her infant, that person doesn't pose a public safety threat to ice and their resources are better used somewhere else. This strips them of that authority, which actually makes everybody less safe. It makes it harder for them to do their job. And that's why their ICE spoke out in opposition to this bill.

[Anna Hecke]

Yes, you actually jumped the gun. I was about to ask you about that with ICE and that you mentioned that they had been opposed to this bill. So does ICE and dhf, do they have the capacity to enforce it? What would Congress or the federal government need to do to give ICE the capacity? Is that even possible?

[Neena Gupta]

Right. So the first thing is that this bill could potentially sweep in tens of thousands of more people who would be subject to mandatory detention. Nobody would have the discretion to release those people. And so the first thing ICE would need is a significant amount of funding to expand immigration detention capacity. In the early days of the Lake and Riley act, some estimates we heard were that ICE would need to open multiple facilities with 10,000 beds each just to support the number of people the Lake and Riley act sweeps in. Right now, the immigration detention system is funded to support around 40,000 beds. Those are essentially at capacity. And so under the Lake and Riley act, they would be in a universe of having to release people that they actually decided might have posed a public safety threat just to fit in the people swept in by this bill. And that is a way in which this bill undermines public safety from the perspective of law enforcement officers who need the flexibility to make decisions on the ground.

[Anna Hecke]

Just to clarify, you've mentioned ICE would have to release people who they deem to be a public threat. Are you referring to people who ICE has already arrested and detained, who are currently in facilities who then would have to be released because they had discretion during that arrest, but they won't have discretion during future arrest?

[Neena Gupta]

Exactly. That's exactly right. So, you know, there are different statutes that authorize immigration detention. Some of those give ICE the discretion to release people or immigration judges the discretion to issue a bond for release. And mandatory detention, for example, does not offer that. So ICE could be holding somebody in immigration detention that they could release, but they've decided not to for a reason. But under the Lake and Riley act, there are a whole group of people now they'd have to keep detained. And those people, we will assume most of them, do not pose a public safety threat because the nature of offenses implicated are low level offenses. And those are folks they'd have to keep detained, which, as you say, would mean releasing people where they have discretion to do so, even though their recommendation might be to not.

[Anna Hecke]

And then you mentioned immigration courts. Would each immigrant who became detained under this act go to the state or local court where they had originally been arrested to have their case tried and plead their case, or would this be done through immigration?

[Neena Gupta]

No. So that's something that a lot of people in the American public don't understand. You know, we were taught, right, in this country, innocent until proven guilty. Right. That you get an opportunity to defend yourself when you're being prosecuted for a criminal case, when people are arrested, just arrested, and even just charged with an offense and federal Immigration authorities are notified right away that here's a non citizen who's been arrested who can now be put into your custody. Once that person is in federal immigration custody, if they're detained, they don't get to go back to state criminal court. So it could be that that charge they receive, that they're actually not guilty of the charge, or it could be that the prosecutor drops the charges because there's actually no evidence to support them. But that won't matter. That person will already be subject to indefinite mandatory detention. And that, by the way, you know, in the current system, people who are transferred to federal immigration custody don't get a chance to complete their criminal cases. That's always been the case. The problem here is that they wouldn't even get to say to a judge, I'd like to go back to state criminal court. Can you release me so that I can go and make my case there. They would just be stuck in detention indefinitely.

[Jonathan Fields]

Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Hey folks, the other day I got a phishing attack. And I got to tell you, it was good. Even some of the URLs looked real and I almost fell for it. But it was missing one thing. It was missing any personal information about me. And that made me really glad that I used DeleteMe. Delete me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites so that when the phishing attack comes for you, it doesn't have something that makes it really seem authentic. Delete Me knows your privacy is worth protecting. Sign up and provide Delete Me with exactly the information, information you want deleted. And their experts take it from there. I am someone with an active online presence. I express political opinions and I am not looking to have that turned against me with personal information about me used in spear phishing attacks. You know I've been the victim of identity theft harassment. And if you haven't, you probably know someone who has. And I'm telling you, I'm an example of this. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete me now at a special discount for Lawfare listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.comLawfare20 and use the promo code Lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and enter the code Lawfare20 at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare 20 code Lawfare20.

[Marissa Wong]

Want to change the efficiency gain AI? It automate tedious tasks to spend more time on the future. Transform the everyday with Siemens Underwear Drawers.

[Neena Gupta]

Are like the Wild west of wardrobes. You never know what pair you're going to pull out or what shape it's in. It's time to upgrade your underwear drawer with the buttery, soft comfort of Meundies. Meundies signature fabric is as soft as a warm hug from your favorite sweater. Plus it's breathable and oh so comfy, making it ideal for all day wear. Get 20% off your first order, plus free shipping at MeUndies.com acast Enter promo.

[Marissa Wong]

Code acast that's MeUndies.com acast Code acast.

[Jonathan Fields]

Hi, this is Jonathan Fields from Good Life Project. If you're not using ironclad for contracts, you could be leaving millions on the table without knowing it. Every contract holds renewal dates, pricing terms and obligations you can't afford to miss.

[Anna Hecke]

But.

[Jonathan Fields]

But good luck finding them when it matters. Ironclad's AI instantly surfaces what matters so you can act before opportunities slip away. That's why they're trusted by OpenAI, L' Oreal and Salesforce. Find the savings hiding in your [e-mail] podcast that's ironcladapp.com podcast.

[Anna Hecke]

How have state governments or local governments reacted to this legislation since Trump has signed it?

[Neena Gupta]

So there has been a range of reactions, but in particular, we know that there are dozens of states around the country that have enacted sanctuary provisions that explicitly protect non citizens from being transferred from state or local criminal custody to federal immigration authorities, precisely to protect people with low level arrests who've been in our communities from decades from being subject to indefinite detention and deportation. So those states and localities, of course, take issue with this bill, which is essentially, you know, pushing ICE to target their communities and to undermine the sanctuary protections they've enacted. It can also interfere with state and local law enforcement agencies enforcing their laws. You know, in Georgia, the Venezuelan man who committed the offense against Lake and Riley, he received a citation for his theft offense because that is matter of course in that county. In Georgia, anybody who gets that low level offense gets a citation. So in other words, what's funny about this bill is that it wouldn't have even detected the person who killed Lake and Riley. Because the point here is it's the local law enforcement Agencies who aren't flagging this person for ICE unless they have to. This bill is about what ICE has to do. In other words, in the fact pattern, in the situation of this Venezuelan person, it wasn't that ICE knew about him and decided not to detain him. It's that they didn't know he had this offense because local state authorities treat these offenses differently based on the resources that they have.

[Anna Hecke]

As we're speaking, it's only been a few days since President Trump has signed this piece of legislation into law, but in the few days since, how has it been implemented, have you seen any changes for how ICE is interacting with state and local law enforcement?

[Neena Gupta]

Yeah. So look, what we know is that in these first two weeks of the Trump administration, there has been obviously an intentional effort to increase daily arrests of people around the country. Right. They're doing non targeted enforcement actions through community arrests, a couple of work site type raids. Those enforcement actions don't even need state and local authority help. But under the Lake and Riley act, if they find out that someone who's not a citizen and who's also in violation of civil law has an arrest from 30 years ago for shoplifting or for an offense from 20 years ago for something in this bill, that person can immediately be subject to mandatory detention. In other words, this bill, paired with the way the Trump administration is arresting in communities, makes it easier to sweep in more people who will be subject to mandatory detention.

[Anna Hecke]

How does this piece of legislation connect with President Trump's executive orders? You've already mentioned sanctuary cities obviously are going to have a complex reaction to this piece of legislation, and he has targeted them with his executive orders. So can you touch on that and then also his other executive orders based on immigration?

[Neena Gupta]

Sure. So, look, I think the first thing about the Lake and Riley act is it makes it easier for the Trump administration to pursue its mass deportation agenda. It makes it easier to sweep in more undocumented people into the immigration system. It allows them to move those cases along faster because people are stuck in detention and those cases tend to move more quickly. In other words, it's an important tool for the agenda that Trump laid out in his executive orders, where he said, you know, we want to collaborate more with local police, we want to expand attention. Those are things that are now being essentially authorized in a statute like the Lake and Riley act in terms of sanctuary protections. I mean, what we're mostly hearing from the Trump administration in the executive order, but also in memos since then, is the threat that if local police don't work with immigration authorities to help find people with these kinds of arrests to transfer people to federal immigration authorities, that the Trump administration will withdraw federal funding from them. And there is a bill that will be voted on starting next week in Congress, the no Bailout for Sanctuary Cities act, which would essentially say the federal government will not give funding to these kinds of localities for any program that happens to serve an undocumented person, even if that program serves thousands of US Citizens. So it's putting at risk school lunch programs, legal services programs, as a way to punish localities that are not willing to cooperate in full ways with federal immigration enforcement. And that bill is an example of the kind of action being threatened in these executive orders.

[Anna Hecke]

And is there anything you're specifically watching for, for as the Lake and Riley act becomes implemented by ICE and dhs?

[Neena Gupta]

Yeah, you know, I think two things. First, we're watching for the multiple examples of people who we know just pose no safety threat. They don't make your life or my life any less safe, who are nevertheless going to be in incarcerated with no due process rights. We want to know who are those people? Who are those community members? We're also going to be watching and listening to law enforcement folks on the ground to hear how enforcing this bill might be interfering with their authority and ability to do their jobs. And we will be watching to see if any state attorney generals will use this new standing authority to upend the balance of power between Congress and the state governments. And that is something we'll want to push back on because that has seismic effects beyond just the people impacted in this bill. This would open the door to a floodgate of lawsuits and the idea that the states can dictate national federal immigration policy and even foreign policy.

[Anna Hecke]

Thinking about litigation, do you see any specific group of people having standing to contest the constitutionality of this act, or do you think any kind of contesting of this act would happen through a different venue?

[Neena Gupta]

I think legal challenges to the mandatory detention provision of this act are somewhat challenging because of current Supreme Court precedent on mandatory detention in the immigration system. Although keeping somebody detained without access to a bond hearing would absolutely violate basic due process in the criminal legal system. The courts have allowed the use of this kind of mandatory detention in a case called Damore vs Kim in the immigration system. The way in which the Lincoln Riley act expands mandatory detention to include not just people with certain offenses, but just with arrests could be a possible way to push back. But generally speaking, what we've seen from the Supreme Court and federal courts is great deference to the executive branch when it comes to immigration authority, that is seen as a political question. The plenary power doctrine gives exceptional deference when it comes to immigration. We might expect to see that again. That's why the really effective way to correct the harms of this bill and the wasted resources of this bill will be for us to amplify the pushback that we're hearing from law enforcement officers and agents and make sure that members of Congress understand how this bill really just makes an. Makes a mess of effective and smart immigration enforcement.

[Anna Hecke]

And so with the visa ban piece you had mentioned earlier in this conversation, if, for example, the Attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, sues to have all immigrants from India under visas, have those rejected, does another state have any standing to kind of push back against that, or would that be something that judges would figure out in that lawsuit?

[Neena Gupta]

It's more so the latter that judges would have to tee up that question. And, you know, in looking at that question, they would first have to decide, you know, is the Lake and Riley act on its face, constitutional, and is it constitutional as applied to giving this state attorney general standing to even bring this case? So before they actually got to the question of the visa itself, they would have to look at whether it makes sense, sense for the state attorney general to have standing on this issue. You know, there have been cases like this where other organizations and plaintiffs intervene in a case because they have a shared interest, and they offer, you know, their perspective through litigation in a related manner to that controversy. So we could expect to see something like that. And, and I will just reiterate that we do think there are, you know, strong constitutional challenges to bring to the standing provision of the Lake and Riley act, even if the mandatory detention provision is more challenging to litigate in federal courts under current precedent.

[Anna Hecke]

When thinking about congressional action on immigration, are you looking at any other pieces of legislation or bills being debated in Congress that would work with or against the Lake and Riley act, or does it seem like Congress is happy with this as it stands?

[Neena Gupta]

Well, look, the Lake and Riley act did get some bipartisan support. And what's disappointing, frankly, about that bipartisan support is that the members who supported it continued that inaccurate message of this being a bill about border security. And I think what that signals is that there are members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that feel obligated after this election to give answers to the American people on border security and also public saf safety. And so, you know, what we're looking for from Congress, regardless of political party are bills that, yes, can ensure public safety and border security, but that don't harm people unnecessarily and make a further mess of the system, making it harder for immigration authorities to actually do their jobs. We want bills that actually meet the stated goals that these members are talking about. And there are a few other bills that, like the Lake and Riley act, would expand the already sweeping mandatory detention provision that would further complicate the Immigration Nationality act, further complicate the jobs of law enforcement officials. We'd rather not see those bills enacted. We would instead like to see comprehensive bills that talk about smarter immigration enforcement and fair treatment of people who've been here for decades and decades. You know, just to add, there are 13 million undocumented people approximately living in the United States. Yes, they are in violation of civil immigration law, but again, fewer than 1 in 10 even have a criminal record. And of those, most are low level violations. There's no reason to be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on penalizing consequences for people who have decades of life in our country who represent one in seven agricultural workers, one in seven construction workers who pay federal and state taxes. That's something a lot of Americans don't know, that undocumented people contribute $40 billion annually in federal taxes. Those are not people who should be targets of aggressive enforcement. We can get smarter than that and still prevent future tragic, horrific acts like what Lake and Riley experienced. We don't need this kind of legislation.

[Anna Hecke]

To do that to kind of close out our conversation. Do you have any final thoughts about how the Lake and Riley act may be implemented or just what you're looking at over the next few weeks and months with the immigration system and this detention piece that you've talked about?

[Neena Gupta]

Yeah, I think what we are looking at very closely is who are the people being swept in under this bill and under Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda? And does it make any sense from any perspective for this many people to be swept in? That's what we're going to be looking at over the next several weeks, so that we can make a case for better, smarter, more targeted enforcement that's also more humane.

[Anna Hecke]

And when you think about targeted enforcement, why does the Lake and Riley act make targeted enforcement so hard? Obviously, you've mentioned this detention piece, but is ICE going to have to then go to jails and go to prisons across the country to take people to detention facilities, or do you see that as something states will have to take on?

[Neena Gupta]

So in the past decade, around 75% of ICE arrests have been handoffs from state and local police. It's always been the case that the majority of ICE enforcement work happens in collaboration with local and state police officers. The way that happens is that there are a few different programs that immigration authorities use to collaborate. But if a person is flagged for immigration authorities, they typically issue what's called a detainer. That's a document or an ask of a local state agency to hold a person in criminal custody or to let ICE know when that person's going to be released so they can be waiting there to pick up the person and transfer them over to federal immigration authority in custody. Now, what the Lake and Riley act is doing is it's essentially telling ICE you have to issue a detainer for. For every single person that falls under this bill, usually I have some discretion. And who they issue detainers for, this is ratcheting up that requirement, forcing them to issue detainers for anybody who comes on their radar. That way. You're right that they're not going to be able to find every single person in the country who has a shoplifting offense, let's say, unless they have some collaboration from state and local police. Police. But once those folks are identified, however they're identified, what this bill says is ICE has to place that detainer and then ICE has to put them into mandatory detention. It takes away that element of discretion at the front end.

[Anna Hecke]

Logistically, it would be ICE going, picking up immigrants in various places and then driving them to the closest detention facility.

[Neena Gupta]

Yes. So the Lake and Riley act is all about what ICE and immigration authorities have to do, and that is, once they know somebody has one of the offenses listed in the bill, even if it's an arrest again or a charge, they have to make sure that person gets into mandatory detention. It does not require state or local agencies to do anything. It just pushes ICE to expand its cooperation with state and local authorities to try to find these folks.

[Anna Hecke]

Yeah. And then. Any final thoughts? Anything before I close out the conversation?

[Neena Gupta]

Sure. Just to say, you know, of course what Lake and Riley experienced was incredibly horrific and tragic, and every American deserves to feel safe and to feel like there's a response to these acts. But we have to be vigilant of elected officials using individual acts as a way to trick the American public by preying upon fear into supporting policies that don't actually make us safer and that waste resources unnecessarily. And that's what the Lake and Riley act does. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean we can't support justice for Lake and Riley or we can't support public safety. We can do those things, but we can do that with smarter, fairer, more proportionate and effective bills. And this one just doesn't do that.

[Anna Hecke]

And we'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

[Neena Gupta]

Thanks so much, Anna.

[Anna Hecke]

The Law Fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter through our website, lawfairmedia.com you'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our material supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts including Rational Security, Chatter, Allies and the Aftermath. Our latest Law Firm Presents podcast series on the Government's response to January 6th. Check out our written work at law firmedia.org the podcast is edited by Jeff and your audio engineer. This episode was Kara Schillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.

[Marissa Wong]

Want to turn challenges into chances? Go digital enterprise and adapt to every change by combining the real and digital worlds. Transform the everyday with Siemens.