HB7363, titled the “ICE Out of Our Faces Act,” would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and certain deputized immigration officers from acquiring, possessing, accessing, or using biometric surveillance systems in the United States. The bill defines biometric surveillance broadly to include facial recognition and other biometric recognition technologies, such as gait recognition and voice recognition, when used to identify, track, or infer information about a person. It also covers information derived from such systems, including data obtained from third parties.
The bill would require deletion, within 30 days of enactment, of biometric-surveillance-related information collected by covered immigration officers, including information collected before enactment. It further bars federal use of information obtained in violation of the bill in most proceedings, while preserving admissibility only in cases alleging a violation of the act itself. The measure also creates a private right of action for aggrieved individuals, allows state attorneys general to sue on behalf of residents, and authorizes remedies such as damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief. Violations could also lead to retraining, suspension, termination, or other penalties, subject to due process.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly restrict DHS immigration-enforcement agencies’ use of facial recognition and related biometric tools, and would require the purge of existing biometric data held for those purposes. It would affect ICE, CBP, and 287(g) officers, and could also limit the use of vendor-provided or third-party biometric outputs if derived from prohibited systems. The bill expressly states it does not preempt other federal, state, or local laws unless there is an actual conflict with its restrictions.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and title, it appears to be a civil-liberties and privacy-focused proposal aimed at curbing immigration-enforcement surveillance. The absence of discussion or vote history means there is no direct evidence here of bipartisan support or opposition, but the bill’s broad restrictions and enforcement mechanisms suggest it could be controversial among supporters of expanded immigration enforcement and biometric policing tools.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between privacy/civil-rights concerns and federal immigration-enforcement capabilities. Supporters would likely emphasize limits on surveillance, data retention, and mistaken identification, while opponents may argue the bill would hamper border security, investigations, and operational efficiency. The inclusion of a private right of action, state enforcement authority, and mandatory deletion of existing data are additional features that could draw opposition from agencies and enforcement advocates.
The bill would create a new federal prohibition on the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies by ICE, CBP, and covered immigration officers, and would require deletion of related data within 30 days of enactment. It would also establish new enforcement mechanisms, including civil lawsuits by affected individuals and state attorneys general, and would authorize damages, injunctive relief, and employment-related penalties for violations. The measure would not broadly preempt state or local law, except where necessary to avoid direct conflict with its restrictions.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so the official legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the available history. The bill’s framing as the “ICE Out of Our Faces Act” and its privacy-centered restrictions indicate a strongly reform-oriented, anti-surveillance posture. In general, the proposal appears aligned with civil liberties and immigrant-rights concerns, while likely drawing resistance from immigration-enforcement advocates and agencies that rely on biometric identification tools.
The central controversy is whether DHS immigration officers should be barred from using facial recognition and related biometric systems. Supporters are likely to argue that these tools create privacy risks, enable mass surveillance, and can produce misidentifications or discriminatory impacts. Opponents are likely to contend that the ban would weaken border security and immigration enforcement, especially by limiting access to identification tools, third-party biometric data, and existing records. The bill’s mandatory deletion requirement, private right of action, and state attorney general enforcement authority are also likely to be disputed.