No Illegal Captivity and Extensions Act of 2026
HB8727, the “No Illegal Captivity and Extensions Act of 2026” or “NICE Act of 2026,” would substantially curtail federal immigration detention authority. The bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate immigration detainers and related hold practices, including detainers tied to controlled-substances violations, by striking existing statutory provisions that authorize them.
It also bars the Department of Homeland Security from requiring state or local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration detainers or holds as a condition of intergovernmental service agreements or similar arrangements. In addition, the bill adds a broad prohibition preventing DHS from issuing or enforcing any immigration detainer or hold through formal or informal agreements with federal, state, or local agencies.
If enacted, the bill would change federal immigration law by removing statutory authority for immigration detainers and related custody requests, and by prohibiting DHS from using agreements to compel cooperation from other law enforcement agencies. This would affect DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and state and local jails or police departments that currently receive or honor detainer requests, reducing federal leverage to hold individuals for immigration purposes beyond their release from criminal custody.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsors as a civil-liberties and anti-detention reform proposal. The title and structure suggest support for limiting what sponsors view as unlawful or excessive immigration detention practices. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented recorded opposition or support in the provided materials beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main point of contention is likely the elimination of immigration detainers altogether, especially where they are used in coordination with state and local law enforcement. Supporters are likely to argue that detainers can lead to prolonged custody without sufficient legal process, while opponents would likely view the bill as weakening immigration enforcement and public-safety cooperation. Another likely dispute is the bill’s prohibition on using service agreements or informal understandings to secure detainer compliance, which would limit DHS’s ability to coordinate with other agencies.