SHIELD Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2025
Bottom line
The SHIELD Act seeks to enhance due process for individuals facing deportation by providing federal grants to bolster the legal services workforce and infrastructure at state and local levels.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the SHIELD Act, authorizes the Attorney General to establish a competitive grant program. These grants would be awarded to states, local governments, and various organizations to fund the recruitment, training, and development of staff and infrastructure necessary to provide legal services to individuals facing deportation, thereby supporting their due process rights. The program aims to expand access to representation by increasing the workforce and strengthening the legal services infrastructure in the immigration field.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical gap in the legal system where individuals facing deportation lack a right to government-funded legal representation, unlike in criminal proceedings. They contend that legal counsel significantly increases the likelihood of favorable outcomes, keeps families and communities together, and mitigates systemic racial inequities in the immigration system. Supporters point to the success of existing state and local publicly funded deportation defense programs as evidence of the positive impact federal support could have.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that providing federal funding for legal representation to individuals facing deportation could be seen as an inappropriate use of taxpayer money, potentially incentivizing illegal immigration or diverting resources from immigration enforcement efforts. Concerns may also be raised about the scope of federal involvement in what some view as a matter of individual responsibility or state/local concern.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Securing Help for Immigrants through Education and Legal Development Act' or the 'SHIELD Act'. This provides a common, easily referencable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps to communicate the bill's purpose and intent to the public and facilitates legislative discussion.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None apparent, as this is a standard procedural element of legislation.
Section 3
Sense of Congress on Access to Legal Counsel
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding the lack of a right to government-funded legal representation for individuals in deportation proceedings, the proven benefits of legal counsel (e.g., significantly increased likelihood of bond and relief from deportation), and the disproportionate impact of the detention and deportation system on Black immigrants. It also acknowledges the success of state and local public funding for deportation defense and calls for federal action.
Section 4(a)-(c)
Immigration Legal Services Staff and Infrastructure Development Program Establishment
This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the Office of Access to Justice, to award competitive grants. These grants are specifically for eligible entities seeking to expand access to legal representation for individuals facing deportation by increasing the workforce and strengthening the necessary legal services infrastructure. Eligible entities include states, units of local government that have already allocated public funds for immigration legal services, and community-based, nonprofit, or educational institutions that provide, coordinate, recruit, train, or mentor individuals in immigration legal services.
Section 4(d)
Authorized Uses of Grant Funds
This subsection specifies how the awarded grant funds can be utilized. Permitted uses include workforce recruitment and training programs (e.g., fellowships, clinical programs for lawyers, accredited representatives, social workers, community navigators), technical assistance (e.g., skills training, language training, specialized legal support, leadership development), local/regional coordination services, retention improvement strategies, promoting diversity in the legal services field, growing infrastructure in underserved areas, and supporting physical, administrative, and technological infrastructure.
Section 5(b)
Independent Implementation of Grant Program
This subsection mandates that the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Office of Access to Justice, must exercise authority under this Act in an independent manner. The primary objective is to increase access to representation for individuals facing deportation, specifically without regard to other priorities of the Federal Government related to immigration enforcement.
Section 6
Reports and Accountability
This section establishes robust accountability measures for grant recipients. Grantees must submit annual reports detailing services, service areas, recruitment/retention numbers, impact on capacity, expenditures, outcomes, and unmet needs. The Department of Justice Inspector General is mandated to conduct audits to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, with provisions for technical assistance for unresolved audit findings. It also includes requirements for nonprofit agencies regarding offshore accounts and compensation disclosure, and limits conference expenditures.
Section 7
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to carry out the provisions of this Act. This sets the financial scope for the grant program over its initial two years.
The bill defines 'individual facing deportation' by referencing specific sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act: sections 212(d)(5)(A), 235(b)(1)(B), 236, 238, 240, or 241.
Section 2(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory text and to ensure legal precision by referencing existing law.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing existing statutes ensures legal accuracy and consistency with established immigration law, avoiding ambiguity in who is covered by the bill's provisions.
Case against: Critics might argue that such cross-referencing makes the bill less accessible to the general public, requiring specialized legal knowledge to fully grasp its implications and the specific categories of individuals it aims to help.
Estimated impact: This definition broadly covers individuals in various stages of removal proceedings, including those seeking asylum, those deemed inadmissible or deportable, and those in expedited removal processes, encompassing a significant portion of individuals encountered by the immigration system.