SB3179, the Halo Act, would amend federal criminal law to create a new offense for obstructing immigration enforcement activities. The bill defines a “Federal immigration enforcement officer” broadly to include federal officers, agents, or employees authorized to enforce federal immigration law, and it defines “harass” as knowingly engaging in conduct intended to cause substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose.
Under the bill, a person who has been verbally warned not to approach and then knowingly comes within 25 feet of a covered officer, while the officer is lawfully performing official duties, could be prosecuted if the person does so with the intent to impede or interfere with the officer, threaten physical harm, or harass the officer. A violation would be punishable by a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. The bill also makes a technical amendment to the chapter 73 table of sections in title 18 of the U.S. Code to add the new section.
Impact
The bill would add a new federal criminal statute to title 18, expanding the tools available to prosecute conduct deemed to obstruct immigration enforcement. It would directly affect individuals who approach or remain near federal immigration enforcement officers after a warning, as well as potentially impacting protest activity, bystander conduct, and interactions around immigration enforcement operations. If enacted, it would create a new basis for federal investigation and prosecution and would be incorporated into the federal criminal code as 18 U.S.C. § 1522.
Sentiment
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee without recorded debate or votes. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote results provided, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s introduction. The text itself suggests a law-and-order framing focused on protecting immigration officers from interference, threats, and harassment.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the scope of the new offense and how broadly it could be applied in practice. Supporters would likely emphasize officer safety and the need to prevent interference with lawful immigration enforcement, while critics may worry that the 25-foot buffer, the “harass” definition, and the intent standard could chill lawful protest, observation, journalism, or other expressive activity near immigration operations. The absence of committee discussion means no specific stakeholder positions are documented in the provided record.
Federal Officer Protection Act Shielding Heroes In Enforcement from Loud Disruptions Act No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 No Rogue Nonprofits Act Stopping Invaders Act No Sanctuary Cities Act
Prohibits any act intended to hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts. (8/1/25) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)