Proximity offense near immigration officers

Full Title:
Halo Act

Summary#

This bill would add a new federal crime for people who approach or stay within 25 feet of a federal immigration enforcement officer after getting a verbal warning not to approach, if they intend to impede, threaten, or harass the officer. The new crime would carry a fine, up to 5 years in prison, or both. The bill also defines who counts as a “Federal immigration enforcement officer” and defines “harass” in the bill.

  • Main change: creates a new offense in federal law for knowingly violating a verbal warning and coming within 25 feet of a federal immigration enforcement officer with intent to impede, threaten, or harass.
  • Penalty: fine, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.
  • Who is covered: any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute violations of federal immigration law.
  • Definition of harassment: a course of conduct that knowingly causes substantial emotional distress to the officer and serves no legitimate purpose.
  • What is unclear: the bill does not explain how the required verbal warning must be given or proved, how distance is measured in practice, or how courts should evaluate “substantial emotional distress” or “serves no legitimate purpose.”

What it means for you#

  • Federal immigration enforcement officers: The bill creates a federal crime meant to deter people from approaching officers after a warning. Officers would have an additional legal tool to seek criminal charges when someone knowingly disobeys a warning and intends to impede, threaten, or harass them.

  • Members of the public near immigration enforcement actions (including protesters, bystanders, journalists, and legal observers): If you are told verbally not to approach a federal immigration enforcement officer, and you knowingly come within 25 feet with the intent to impede, threaten, or harass, you could face criminal charges. The law focuses on the person’s intent and on causing “substantial emotional distress.”

  • People who record or observe enforcement activities: The bill could affect people who try to get close to observe, record, or protest an immigration enforcement action after a verbal warning. The bill does not say whether peaceful observation or recording counts as a “legitimate purpose.”

  • Local officials and agencies: The law targets officers authorized to enforce federal immigration law. It does not on its face create a new duty for state or local officers, though some local officials who are authorized to enforce federal immigration law could be covered.

  • General public and travelers: In places where federal immigration officers are working (airports, border areas, detention facilities), people who ignore a verbal warning and come too close could be criminally liable if their actions meet the bill’s intent elements.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note, budget estimate, or other cost details.
  • Possible costs that are not estimated in the bill text include prosecution and court costs, detention or prison costs for people sentenced under the law, and administrative costs to federal law enforcement to document warnings and enforce the new offense.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to protect federal immigration enforcement officers from interference, threats, and harassment while they perform their duties.
  • Supporters may argue it would deter people from interfering with enforcement operations and make it easier to prosecute conduct that impedes officers.
  • The bill creates a specific legal standard and penalty aimed at making enforcement actions safer and less interrupted.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the bill’s vague language. Terms like “substantial emotional distress,” “serves no legitimate purpose,” and how a verbal warning must be given are subjective and could be hard to apply consistently.
  • The requirement that a person “knowingly” violate a warning and have a disallowed intent may be difficult to prove or could be applied unevenly.
  • The 25-foot rule and the criminal penalty of up to 5 years in prison could chill lawful activities such as peaceful protest, recording officers, or providing assistance near enforcement actions. The bill does not say how to protect lawful observers, journalists, or legal advocates.
  • It is unclear how the law would be documented and enforced in crowded or chaotic situations where staying 25 feet away may be impractical.
  • The bill does not include any fiscal estimate or explain how enforcement and prosecution costs would be handled.