Mandatory Detention Expanded by the Laken Riley Act

By Brian Figeroux, Esq. 

The Laken Riley Act represents a significant clarification and development in the context of mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specifically, it addresses the interpretation of certain crimes that trigger mandatory detention under INA § 236(c)(1)(E), elucidating how these terms should be understood within the legal frameworks of various jurisdictions. This article will explore the implications of this clarification, how it affects the interpretation and enforcement of immigration laws, and provide a comprehensive overview of the crimes that necessitate mandatory detention.

Understanding the Laken Riley Act and INA § 236(c)

Background of INA § 236(c): The INA § 236(c), more commonly known as the mandatory detention statute, requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-citizens who have committed specific crimes or who are deemed deportable on specific grounds related to terrorism or national security. This statute aims to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from remaining at large while their removal proceedings are pending.

Clarifications Brought by the Laken Riley Act: The Laken Riley Act amends INA § 236(c) to specify that the terms “burglary,” “theft,” “larceny,” “shoplifting,” “assault of a law enforcement officer,” and “serious bodily injury” are to be defined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the act occurred. This clarification is crucial because it aligns the federal immigration enforcement with state-level criminal law definitions, which can vary significantly from one state to another.

Analysis of the Terms Defined by the Laken Riley Act

1. Burglary: Traditionally, burglary is defined as unlawful entry into a building or other premises with the intent to commit a crime, typically theft. Under the Laken Riley Act, if a state has a broader or narrower definition of burglary, that definition will dictate whether the offense triggers mandatory detention.
2. Theft and Larceny: While often used interchangeably, “theft” generally refers to the act of stealing, whereas “larceny” is a specific type of theft involving the unlawful taking and carrying away of personal property. The distinction under state law could affect the applicability of mandatory detention.
3. Shoplifting: Generally considered a form of petty theft, but definitions and thresholds for what constitutes shoplifting can differ, affecting whether it falls under mandatory detention criteria.
4. Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer: This term can encompass a range of actions depending on state law, from physical violence to other forms of assault.
5. Serious Bodily Injury: Typically defined as injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. State specifics could vary widely in how “serious” the injury must be to meet this definition.

List of Crimes that Require Mandatory Detention under INA § 236(c)

The INA outlines several categories of criminal offenses and conditions that trigger mandatory detention. These include:

1. Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Generally, a non-citizen is deportable if convicted of a CIMT committed within five years of admission if the crime could result in a sentence of one year or more.
2. Multiple Criminal Convictions: Non-citizens who are convicted of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct, and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude.
3. Aggravated Felonies: A broad category that includes murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, drug trafficking, firearm trafficking, and crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.
4. High-Speed Flight: Non-citizens who have engaged in high-speed flight from an immigration checkpoint.
5. Failure to Register as a Sex Offender.
6. Drug Abuse or Addiction: Individuals deemed to be drug abusers or addicts.
7. Crimes Against National Security and Terrorism: Including but not limited to espionage, sabotage, treason, and attempting to overthrow the government.

Implications of the Laken Riley Act

The Act’s requirement that criminal definitions adhere to state standards introduces a layer of complexity in immigration enforcement. It necessitates that immigration authorities are knowledgeable about the criminal laws of each state, potentially leading to variability in enforcement. This could mean that an immigrant could be subject to mandatory detention in one state for a crime that might not trigger detention in another.

Final Thoughts

The Laken Riley Act’s implications for immigration law and enforcement are profound. By requiring that key criminal terms be defined according to state law, it acknowledges the diversity of legal definitions across the U.S. and aligns immigration procedures more closely with local legal standards. This ensures a more tailored and locally informed approach to the enforcement of mandatory detention rules under the INA, though it also introduces challenges in ensuring consistent application across different jurisdictions. This analysis highlights the importance of understanding local legal contexts in the administration of federal immigration laws and underscores the complexities inherent in the intersection of state and federal legal systems.