Deportation Acceleration Act

Summary#

This bill is called the Deportation Acceleration Act. It would speed up deportation of noncitizens by (1) requiring fast sharing of criminal-conviction data with federal immigration authorities, (2) expanding who is eligible for expedited removal, (3) shortening appeal times in criminal removal cases, and (4) rewarding or punishing local governments based on their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

• Real-time reporting: State and local courts and police must report every criminal conviction of a noncitizen to the Department of Homeland Security within 24 hours, through integration with federal databases.
• Expanded expedited removal: Expedited removal procedures would apply to any noncitizen convicted of any felony or of any two misdemeanors. This applies whether the crimes or convictions happened before or after the bill’s enactment.
• Faster appeals and prioritization: Immigration courts must prioritize criminal removal cases. The bill directs rules to resolve appeals in those cases within 120 days where practicable and shortens several appeal deadlines from 90–180 days down to 30 days in specified situations.
• Cooperation grants and penalties: The bill authorizes $150 million per year in competitive grants for state/local governments that fully cooperate with immigration detainers and information sharing. It also directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 15% of a jurisdiction’s Highway Trust Fund apportionment if the jurisdiction is judged a “sanctuary jurisdiction” (i.e., it has laws or practices that limit sharing immigration status or complying with detainers), with a 180‑day cure period and an appeal for undue hardship to the Attorney General.

What it means for you#

• Noncitizens with criminal convictions

  • Could face faster removal proceedings if convicted of any felony or two misdemeanors.
  • Earlier and faster starts to deportation could reduce time to removal and shorten time available for certain appeals.
  • The rule applies even if the crime or conviction happened before the law starts.

• State and local courts and law enforcement

  • Must send every conviction of a noncitizen to DHS within 24 hours by linking their systems to federal databases.
  • May receive immigration detainers or notices to appear more often.
  • Could use granted funds for detention, training, or equipment if they fully cooperate.

• Sanctuary jurisdictions (states, counties, cities with restrictive local policies)

  • Risk losing 15% of federal highway funds unless they certify they no longer meet the bill’s definition of “sanctuary.”
  • Have 180 days after notice to change policy or appeal the withholding on hardship grounds.

• Immigration courts and agencies (DHS, DOJ)

  • Must prioritize criminal removal dockets and try to speed appeal resolution.
  • May face increased workloads from more and faster removal cases, and from processing detainers and data feeds.

• Residents and local governments generally

  • Some jurisdictions may gain grant money if they cooperate.
  • Others could lose a portion of federal highway money, which could reduce local transportation funding.

Expenses#

The bill authorizes $150,000,000 per year to the Department of Homeland Security for grants to cooperating state and local governments.

• Direct authorization: $150 million per fiscal year beginning 2026 for competitive grants.
• Highway fund impact: The bill directs withholding 15% of a sanctuary jurisdiction’s Highway Trust Fund apportionment until it certifies compliance. The dollar value depends on each jurisdiction’s highway funding; the bill does not give a total federal cost or savings figure.
• Other likely costs (no estimate provided):
  • Increased DHS and DOJ administrative, detention, and removal costs from faster and larger removal caseloads.
  • Costs to state and local courts and police to implement 24‑hour reporting and integrate systems.
  • Potential reallocation or loss of state and local transportation funds due to the 15% withholding.
• Overall fiscal estimate: No publicly available comprehensive cost estimate or fiscal note is included in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address perceived gaps between criminal justice records and immigration enforcement and to speed removal of noncitizens with criminal convictions. Possible arguments that follow from the bill text include:

• The bill appears intended to make immigration enforcement faster and more efficient by ensuring DHS gets conviction information quickly.
• Expanding expedited removal to any felony or two misdemeanors could be seen as a way to remove people convicted of serious or repeated crimes more quickly.
• Prioritizing criminal removal cases and shortening appeal windows could reduce backlog and speed final decisions.
• Grants aim to incentivize local cooperation and to help jurisdictions cover detention and enforcement costs.
• Withholding highway funds is designed to pressure jurisdictions that limit cooperation to change policies.

Opponents' View#

The bill creates several possible concerns and trade-offs based on its text and design:

• One concern is that drastically shorter appeal windows (down to 30 days in some cases) may reduce the time available for legal review and could affect due process protections.
• The 24‑hour reporting requirement and expanded data sharing raise questions about privacy, accuracy, and the burden on courts and police to build and maintain real‑time links to federal systems.
• Applying expedited removal retroactively to past convictions could expose long‑settled cases to renewed removal risk; the bill does not explain how previously adjudicated cases would be handled in practice.
• Withholding 15% of highway funds could reduce local transportation funding and may have large budgetary impacts for jurisdictions judged to be “sanctuary” under a broad definition; the bill does not show how “sanctuary” determinations will be made in practice.
• The bill does not provide a full fiscal estimate for increased detention, removal, court, or administrative costs; these could be substantial but are not quantified.
• It is unclear how the bill’s requirements will interact with state or local laws that limit information sharing or limit compliance with detainers; the bill does not describe conflict‑resolution or preemption rules.