HEART Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 13, 2026
Bottom line
The HEART Act aims to enhance due process and oversight in the U.S. asylum system by codifying judicial review for safe third country removals and establishing rigorous standards for designating such countries.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a formal process for designating a 'safe third country' for asylum removal, outlining specific grounds for judicial review of such determinations. It mandates that the Secretary of State issue a rule setting minimum standards for safe third countries, including due process and human rights compliance, and requires congressional certification before any country can be designated.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill introduces necessary due process protections and clarity for asylum seekers facing removal to safe third countries, ensuring that such countries genuinely meet international human rights standards and can provide fair asylum procedures. It also provides a structured framework for designating these countries, enhancing accountability and transparency in the process.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that while appearing to add protections, the bill could still facilitate the removal of vulnerable asylum seekers by codifying a process that might not adequately safeguard their rights, especially if the 'safe third country' designation process is not rigorously applied or if the judicial review grounds are too narrow. Concerns could also be raised about potential delays in processing asylum claims due to new review mechanisms and increased administrative burdens.
The bill is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its implications for asylum law are significant and warrant careful consideration beyond a superficial review.
Section 2(1), amending INA Section 208(a)(3)
Establishes Specific Grounds for Judicial Review of Safe Third Country Removals
This provision amends existing law to allow aliens to seek judicial review if they are to be removed to a 'safe third country.' It specifies four prima facie grounds for such review: if the bilateral/multilateral agreement doesn't apply, if their life or liberty would be threatened in the third country, if they wouldn't have access to a full and fair asylum procedure there, or if a technical issue prevents or unduly delays removal. Crucially, it mandates release from detention for the duration of this judicial review.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for due process, ensuring that individuals are not arbitrarily sent to countries where they face danger or lack fair legal recourse. The mandatory release from detention during review upholds humanitarian principles and prevents prolonged, potentially unjust, incarceration.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that expanding judicial review and mandating release could create loopholes, encourage frivolous claims, and strain judicial resources, potentially slowing down the immigration process and increasing the number of individuals released into the country pending review, raising concerns about public safety and appearance rates.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for robust due process and protection for asylum seekers against concerns about potential delays in removal processes, increased administrative burden on the immigration system, and the practical challenges of managing individuals released from detention.
Section 2(2), adding INA Section 208(a)(4)
Mandates Rulemaking for Minimum Standards of Safe Third Countries
This section requires the Secretary of State to issue a rule within 180 days of enactment, setting minimum standards for a country to be designated as a 'safe third country.' These standards must include due process for immigrants, a consistent record of observing the rule of law, an unlikelihood of imminent military conflict or violent domestic unrest, compliance with international refugee and human rights conventions, and a determination that the country independently possesses the economic resources to provide humanely for refugees engaged in the asylum-seeking process.
Section 2(2), adding INA Section 208(a)(5)
Requires Congressional Certification for Safe Third Country Designations
This provision mandates that before the Secretary of State can designate a country as a 'safe third country,' they must submit a certification to Congress confirming that the country meets all the requirements established in the rule issued under paragraph (4). This adds a layer of legislative oversight to the executive branch's authority in this area.