In January, 2025, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act with bipartisan support in direct reaction to the murder of college student Laken Riley by Jose Antonio Ibarra in 2024. An undocumented immigrant with no prior history of violent offenses, Antonio Ibarra previously had only two interactions with law enforcement for minor offenses: (1) an arrest by NYPD for child endangerment—driving his wife’s son on a moped without a helmet while making food deliveries—and (2) a citation for shoplifting groceries. In both instances, law enforcement released Antonio Ibarra without issuing an ICE detainer for his transfer to immigrant detention and initiation of removal proceedings.
Historically, ICE detainers have not been typically issued by local law enforcement for individuals without any prior criminal history or minor infractions that do not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities. However, the Act dramatically expands the scope of mandatory immigrant detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Previously, mandatory detention applied to non-citizens involved in specific offenses such as aggravated felonies or terrorism-related crimes.
The Act broadens this definition to include individuals “charged with,” “arrested for,” “convicted of,” or who “admi[t]” “committing” or “having committed”
- theft-related crimes;
- assaulting law enforcement officers; or
- causing serious bodily injury—all defined by the legal definitions of the jurisdictions in which the acts occurred.
These changes have profound implications for immigration enforcement and proceedings. Critically, the expanded mandatory detention criteria eliminates bond eligibility or alternative release options for individuals with minor offenses—like shoplifting—who would have previously been eligible for a bond to be released from immigration detention during the pendency of immigration removal proceedings. Now, those individuals are subject to prolonged detention, which also expedites their deportation proceedings and shortens the time available to prepare defenses or applications for relief from removal.
The Act also opens the door for inconsistent application across jurisdictions. In determining whether mandatory detention applies, the Act permits Immigration Judges to consider not only of convictions but also:
- the facts underlying charges, including those not yet pled to or proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
- arrests, which may involve judicial consideration of hearsay within potentially biased, inaccurate, and uncrossexaminable police reports; and
- admissions, even in cases where the admitted conduct did not actually occur but was acknowledged or pled to in order to secure a more favorable or reduced disposition.
This means that individuals may now be found subject to mandatory detention under the Act for conduct that never actually occurred or that has neither been admitted nor proven in a criminal court.
Keep an eye on our blog at Joseph & Hall to stay informed about the Act, its application, and how it may affect you or those you love.
