Justice for Citizens Wrongfully Detained by ICE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a new federal cause of action and significant financial penalties for U.S. citizens unlawfully detained by immigration enforcement, while also cutting specific immigration enforcement funding.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a private right of action for U.S. citizens who are arrested or detained by immigration or law enforcement officers enforcing immigration laws without a warrant or probable cause. It mandates significant statutory damages for successful plaintiffs, removes immunity defenses for officers, and waives sovereign immunity for the United States. Additionally, it rescinds unobligated balances of certain immigration enforcement funds.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill provides essential justice and compensation for U.S. citizens who have been wrongfully targeted, arrested, and detained by immigration officers, often due to racial profiling, in violation of their constitutional rights, and holds accountable those officers and the federal government for such violations.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill could severely hinder immigration enforcement efforts by exposing officers to excessive liability and discouraging necessary actions to secure the border and enforce immigration laws, potentially leading to a chilling effect on legitimate enforcement activities.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for citizens to understand its provisions and implications.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Wrongful Detentions
This section outlines Congress's belief that U.S. citizens have been wrongfully stopped, arrested, and detained by immigration and law enforcement officers, often based on racial profiling and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. It asserts that officers do not have immunity for these constitutional violations and that wrongfully detained citizens deserve justice and compensation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings accurately reflect documented instances of U.S. citizens being unlawfully targeted and detained, providing a necessary moral and legal foundation for the bill's remedies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these findings are overly broad or biased, potentially prejudging officers' actions and creating a narrative that undermines legitimate immigration enforcement efforts.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need to acknowledge past injustices and protect civil liberties against concerns that such findings could be perceived as an indictment of all immigration enforcement.
Section 3(a)
Establishment of Private Right of Action
This provision creates a new legal pathway for U.S. citizens to sue immigration officers or law enforcement officers (including those operating under 287(g) agreements) and the United States government if they are arrested or detained without a warrant or probable cause on or after January 20, 2025.
Section 3(b)
Mandatory Damages and Relief
If a court finds in favor of a plaintiff in an action under this Act, the court must award statutory damages of $500,000, plus an additional $100,000 for each day the individual was detained after the initial arrest. It also mandates reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief.
Section 3(c)
Removal of Immunity Defenses and Sovereign Immunity Waiver
This section establishes a 5-year statute of limitations for bringing an action. Crucially, it explicitly states that immigration or law enforcement officers cannot use absolute or qualified immunity as a defense. Furthermore, the United States government expressly waives its sovereign immunity, allowing it to be sued directly under this Act.
Section 4
Rescission of Immigration Enforcement Funds
This provision permanently rescinds unobligated balances of funds previously made available by Section 100052 of Public Law 119-21, which was an act related to reconciliation. This effectively cuts specific funding previously allocated for immigration enforcement.