State Partnerships to Enhance Removal of Criminal Aliens Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill expands state involvement in federal immigration enforcement and significantly widens the scope of crimes that trigger severe immigration consequences, particularly for non-citizens, including mandatory detention and deportation.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow state-employed, licensed attorneys to perform certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counsel functions in removal proceedings for criminal aliens, at the state's expense. It also significantly broadens the definition of "aggravated felony" under immigration law, making a wider range of offenses grounds for inadmissibility and expedited removal, and automatically bars individuals convicted of an aggravated felony from asylum or withholding of removal.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill enhances public safety by streamlining the removal of criminal aliens, leveraging state resources to address backlogs in immigration courts, and ensuring that a broader range of serious offenses lead to deportation. They contend it strengthens immigration enforcement, closes loopholes, and protects communities from individuals who have committed crimes.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill federalizes state and local law enforcement, potentially leading to inconsistent application of federal law, racial profiling, and civil rights abuses. They would also contend that expanding the "aggravated felony" definition without clear judicial review could lead to disproportionate and unjust deportations for minor offenses, separating families and undermining due process, especially with its retroactive application.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are understandable, but the legal implications of amending existing statutes and definitions require careful consideration beyond a quick read.
Section 2, amending Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357) by inserting subsection (h).
State Partnerships to Perform DHS Counsel Functions
This provision allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with states, enabling state-employed, licensed attorneys to represent DHS in certain removal proceedings. These state attorneys would operate under DHS direction and supervision, at the state's expense, and would be considered acting under federal authority for liability and immunity purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision will increase the efficiency and capacity of immigration courts by allowing states to assist in prosecuting removal cases, particularly for criminal aliens, without burdening federal taxpayers. It leverages state resources to address a national issue.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this blurs the lines between federal and state authority, potentially leading to inconsistent application of federal immigration law and raising concerns about accountability and due process for non-citizens. They may also worry about states using this authority to pursue aggressive enforcement agendas.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal resource constraints with the desire for increased immigration enforcement capacity, potentially at the cost of consistent federal oversight and due process concerns.
Section 3(a), amending Paragraph (43) of section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)).
Broadening the Definition of Aggravated Felony
This section significantly expands the list of offenses classified as "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes. It includes offenses involving controlled substances regardless of federal classification if a felony under state/local/tribal law, broadens definitions for crimes of violence and theft to include attempts/conspiracies and lower thresholds, removes exceptions for document fraud, and adds war crimes, torture, genocide, and child soldier recruitment. It also includes any felony or offense punishable by more than 1 year imprisonment.
Section 3(b), amending Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)).
Aggravated Felony as a Standalone Inadmissibility Ground
This provision explicitly adds conviction of an "aggravated felony" as a standalone ground for inadmissibility to the United States. Previously, inadmissibility for criminal offenses was based on specific categories like crimes involving moral turpitude or controlled substance violations.
Section 3(c), amending sections 208(b)(2)(B)(i), 238(a)(1), 241(b)(3)(B), and 242(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Streamlining "Particularly Serious Crime" Determinations
These amendments modify how "particularly serious crime" is defined for asylum and withholding of removal purposes. It states that an alien convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have committed a particularly serious crime, removing the previous 5-year aggregate sentence threshold. It also clarifies that a crime can be "particularly serious" even if it's not an aggravated felony, and allows DHS and the Attorney General to jointly designate offenses as such by regulation.
Section 3(d).
Retroactive Application of Aggravated Felony Changes
This provision states that the changes made to the definition of "aggravated felony" and related amendments apply retroactively to offenses committed before, on, or after the date of enactment, and to removal proceedings commenced before, on, or after the date of enactment.
Allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with states for state officers to perform DHS counsel functions "notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code." Section 1342 is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from accepting voluntary services or incurring obligations in advance of appropriations.
Section 2, new INA Section 287(h)(1).
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice when a new authority needs to bypass an existing general prohibition. It's necessary for the state-funded model to work.
Case for: Supporters would argue this exemption is crucial to allow states to fund their own participation in federal immigration enforcement, ensuring that federal agencies can accept these services without violating federal appropriations law.
Case against: Critics might argue that bypassing the Anti-Deficiency Act, even for state-funded services, could set a precedent for federal agencies to rely on external, non-federalized labor in ways that circumvent federal hiring and budgetary controls.
Estimated impact: Enables the entire state partnership program to function by removing a significant legal barrier to accepting state-funded services.
States that an officer or employee of a State acting under this subsection "shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability, and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil action brought under Federal, State, local, or tribal law."
Section 2, new INA Section 287(h)(8).
Why it matters:This is a critical protection for state employees performing federal functions, ensuring they receive the same legal protections as federal employees. It's a necessary incentive for states to participate.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is essential to protect state employees who are performing federal duties from undue liability, encouraging states to participate in these partnerships by mitigating legal risks for their personnel.
Case against: Opponents might argue this provision shields state actors from accountability under state and local laws, potentially making it harder for individuals to seek redress for alleged misconduct by these state-federalized officers.
Estimated impact: Provides significant legal protection to state attorneys participating in the program, potentially reducing their personal and state liability in civil actions.
Amends the definition of "crime of violence" to include "any crime... where evidence establishes the circumstances of the crime as actually committed by the alien involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another," regardless of the statutory definition. It also lowers the imprisonment threshold to one year for assault, battery, or robbery. Similarly, it broadens "theft" to include "any crime... where evidence establishes the circumstances of the crime as actually committed by the alien was an offense involving burglary or theft," regardless of whether a structure was involved or if the taking was temporary or permanent, with a one-year imprisonment threshold.
Section 3(a)(6) and (7), amending INA 101(a)(43)(F) and (G).
Why it matters:This is technically phrased language that significantly expands the reach of these definitions beyond statutory elements, making it harder for non-citizens to argue their conviction does not meet the aggravated felony standard.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that the actual conduct of the alien, rather than just the technical elements of the conviction, is considered when determining if a crime is an aggravated felony, preventing individuals who committed violent or serious theft from avoiding deportation on technicalities.
Case against: Opponents would argue this introduces an element of subjective judicial fact-finding beyond the conviction record, potentially undermining the finality of criminal judgments and creating uncertainty. It could lead to individuals being deported for actions not explicitly part of their conviction.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number of individuals whose past convictions could be reclassified as aggravated felonies, increasing deportations.