Summary#
This bill would stop the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using federal funds to seize, detain, arrest, or subject people to routine or spontaneous investigative stops based on listed personal characteristics or activities. The main change is a specific ban on profiling by DHS that includes race, religion, sex, language, location, job, and other listed factors. The stated policy aim is to prevent discriminatory enforcement by DHS.
- Main change: DHS employees and people acting under DHS authority may not take enforcement actions or routine investigatory actions based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, presence at certain work-related locations, participation in particular hobbies or jobs, or speaking a language other than English or English with an accent.
- New legal remedy in immigration cases: A noncitizen in removal (deportation) proceedings may ask a U.S. district court to decide whether this ban was violated; if the judge finds a violation, the judge must dismiss the removal case.
- Scope example: The ban explicitly names places associated with informal or temporary work (bus stops, car washes, agricultural sites) and the use of Spanish or any non‑English language.
- What is unclear: The bill does not explain how the ban applies to criminal prosecutions, what evidence proves a violation, or who exactly counts as a person “acting under the authority” of DHS.
What it means for you#
- DHS employees and contractors: They must not rely on the listed personal traits, locations, activities, or language use when deciding to seize, detain, arrest, or conduct routine or spontaneous investigative stops.
- Noncitizens in removal proceedings: They can ask a district court to review whether DHS or its agents violated this ban. If the court finds a violation, the removal case must be dismissed.
- People who speak a language other than English or who speak English with an accent: They are expressly protected from being targeted for detention, arrest, seizure, or routine investigative stops because of language or accent.
- Workers or people at informal job sites (bus stops, car washes, farms): Being at these locations alone cannot be the basis for routine or spontaneous investigatory stops, seizures, detentions, or arrests by DHS under federal funding.
- Lawyers and immigration advocates: May use the district-court remedy in removal cases to challenge enforcement actions that appear to violate the ban.
- General public and local law enforcement: The bill addresses DHS actions funded by the federal government. It does not clearly say how this affects purely local or state enforcement unless those actors are acting under DHS authority.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- This could mean more district-court hearings in immigration cases, which may raise federal court workload and related costs.
- This could mean DHS needs training, revised policies, monitoring, or compliance programs, which would have administrative costs.
- The bill text does not include an estimate of these costs or say how they would be paid.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to prevent DHS from using protected personal traits, language, or certain locations as a basis for enforcement actions.
- A possible argument for the bill is that it would protect people from discriminatory or biased stops and enforcement by federal immigration and homeland-security actors.
- The district-court remedy for removal cases could be seen as giving individuals a clear path to challenge unlawful profiling.
- The bill could be seen as clarifying that language, accent, or presence at common informal-work sites are not lawful grounds for DHS enforcement actions funded by the federal government.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill may limit DHS’s ability to use location or activity-based information that agents consider relevant to investigations (for example, investigations linked to cross-border smuggling or labor trafficking).
- The bill does not clearly define key terms such as “routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” “acting under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security,” or what proof shows a violation; this could create legal uncertainty.
- The judicial remedy applies to removal (immigration) proceedings only; it is unclear whether or how the ban affects criminal prosecutions, border stops, or other enforcement contexts.
- This may increase federal court workload and administrative costs for DHS (training, policy changes), but the bill provides no budget estimate or funding for those activities.