US Federal House Bill HB64

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/3/25
• Refer: 1/3/25

Caption

Grant’s Law

Summary

HB64, titled “Grant’s Law,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain certain noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the United States and are arrested for specified criminal offenses. The bill applies when the offense is one that, if convicted, would make the person inadmissible or deportable under existing immigration law. It also shifts the detention authority in this section from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill further provides that a detained person may be released to the appropriate authority for proceedings after arrest, but DHS must regain custody during any period when the person is not in that authority’s custody. If the person is not convicted, DHS would still continue detention until removal proceedings are completed. In addition, the bill would require removal proceedings for individuals detained under this new provision to be completed within 90 days after detention.

Impact

HB64 would narrow DHS discretion and create a mandatory detention category for unlawfully present noncitizens arrested for certain offenses, expanding the circumstances under which immigration detention is required. It would amend sections 236(c) and 239(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, affecting federal immigration enforcement, detention operations, and the timing of removal proceedings. The bill would likely increase detention and case-processing obligations for DHS and could affect local criminal-immigration coordination when arrested individuals are transferred between criminal custody and immigration custody.

Sentiment

There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for HB64, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate or floor action. Based on the bill’s text and title, it appears to be framed as a public-safety and enforcement measure, suggesting support from sponsors who favor stricter immigration detention rules. No opposing arguments are documented in the provided materials, but the mandatory detention and expedited removal features indicate the bill would likely be viewed as a significant enforcement expansion by critics.

Contention

The main points of contention would likely be the mandatory nature of detention, the treatment of people who have been arrested but not convicted, and the requirement that DHS continue detention until removal proceedings are completed even if the person is not convicted. Critics may argue this raises due process concerns, increases detention of individuals who have not been found guilty, and places pressure on immigration detention capacity and case timelines. Supporters are likely to emphasize public safety, enforcement consistency, and faster removal of noncitizens arrested for serious offenses.