This part lets states go to court. A state's top law officer may sue over how these rules are run. Courts must move those cases fast. A state counts as hurt if it is out more than $100. One old limit on court orders is switched off for these suits.
The document says “shall”Who acts: attorney general of a State, other authorized State officerHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention and removal requirements under paragraph (1) or (2) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.”
Subsection (a) of section 3 amends section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)) by inserting a new paragraph (3). The new paragraph gives a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security in a federal district court for injunctive relief, on an allegation that the detention and removal requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) were violated in a way that harms the state or its residents.
What the document actually says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention and removal requirements under paragraph (1) or (2) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security on behalf of such State or the residents of such State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate injunctive relief.”
That sentence, in plain words
A state's top law officer may sue the head of Homeland Security. The claim must be that a rule about holding or sending back people was broken. The state must show it was hurt.
What this is about
To sue, you must have standing. That means a court will hear you at all. This gives states that right for these rules.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“(1) in subsection (e)-- (A) by striking ``or release''; and (B) by striking ``grant, revocation, or denial'' and insert ``revocation or denial''; and”
Subsection (b)(1) of section 3 amends subsection (e) of section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) in two places: it strikes the words 'or release', and it replaces 'grant, revocation, or denial' with 'revocation or denial'. What the amended subsection reads either side of that change is not recorded here, because that statute is not indexed on this site.
What the document actually says
“(1) in subsection (e)-- (A) by striking ``or release''; and (B) by striking ``grant, revocation, or denial'' and insert ``revocation or denial''; and”
That sentence, in plain words
Two sets of words come out of an older law. One is 'or release'. The other is the word 'grant' in a list of three.
What this is about
This does not say what that older law says. It says only which words change. The site does not track that older law.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: attorney general of a State, other authorized State officerHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging an action or decision by the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action”
Subsection (b)(2) of section 3 adds a new subsection (f) to section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226). It gives a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security in a federal district court for injunctive relief, over an action or decision under that section to release an alien or to grant an alien bond or parole, where the state or its residents are harmed.
What the document actually says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging an action or decision by the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security under this section to release any alien or grant bond or parole to any alien that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action”
That sentence, in plain words
A state's top law officer may sue if a person is let go. The suit may also come from bond or parole being given.
What this is about
Bond is money put up so a person may go free while a case runs. Parole here means being let in or let out for a set reason.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: attorney general of a State, other authorized State officerHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State”
Subsection (c) of section 3 adds a new subsection (e) to section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253). It gives a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Secretary of State in a federal district court for injunctive relief, on an allegation that the requirement in subsection (d) of that section to discontinue granting visas was violated in a way that harms the state or its residents.
What the document actually says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the requirement to discontinue granting visas to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents as described in subsection (d) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of State”
That sentence, in plain words
A state's top law officer may sue the Secretary of State. The claim is that visas kept going out when a rule said to stop.
What this is about
A visa is a paper that lets a person come here. The Secretary of State runs that system. This suit is aimed at that office.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and”
Subsection (d)(1) of section 3 amends section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) by striking the term 'Attorney General' wherever it appears in that paragraph and inserting 'Secretary of Homeland Security'. What that paragraph otherwise says is not recorded here, because that statute is not indexed on this site.
What the document actually says
“(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and”
That sentence, in plain words
One job title in an older law is swapped out. The Attorney General goes out. The head of Homeland Security goes in.
What this is about
The swap happens at each spot where the old title shows up. This site does not track what that older rule says.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: attorney general of a State, other authorized State officerHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
Subsection (d)(2) of section 3 adds a new subparagraph (C) to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It gives a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security in a federal district court for injunctive relief, on an allegation that the limitation in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph, that parole be granted solely case by case and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, was violated in a way that harms the state or its residents.
What the document actually says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
That sentence, in plain words
A state's top law officer may sue over parole. The claim is that parole was not given one case at a time, or not for a listed reason.
What this is about
Parole here means letting a person in or out for a short time. The new words point back to a rule that limits when it may be used.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: attorney general of a State, other authorized State officerHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention requirement under subparagraph (A) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
Subsection (e) of section 3 amends section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2)). It labels the existing text as subparagraph (A) and adds a new subparagraph (B) giving a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security in a federal district court for injunctive relief, on an allegation that the detention requirement in subparagraph (A) was violated in a way that harms the state or its residents.
What the document actually says
“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the detention requirement under subparagraph (A) that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
That sentence, in plain words
A state's top law officer may sue over holding people. The claim is that a rule about the removal period was broken.
What this is about
The removal period is a stretch of time set aside for sending a person home. The old text gets the label 'A' so the new words can point at it.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: United States district courtsHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this paragraph to the greatest extent practicable.”
Each new right of action that section 3 creates carries the same instruction to the court: advance the case on the docket and expedite its disposition to the greatest extent practicable. The sentence is quoted here from the new section 235(b)(3), added by subsection (a). Near-identical copies appear in the new section 236(f), section 243(e), section 212(d)(5)(C), and section 241(a)(2)(B).
What the document actually says
“The court shall advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of a civil action filed under this paragraph to the greatest extent practicable.”
That sentence, in plain words
The court must put these cases near the front of the line. It must finish them as fast as it can.
What this is about
A docket is the court's list of cases. This same rule shows up in each new part that this section adds.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“For purposes of this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.”
Each new right of action that section 3 creates carries the same rule on what counts as harm: a state or its residents are considered harmed if they experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100. The sentence is quoted here from the new section 235(b)(3), added by subsection (a). Near-identical copies appear in the new section 236(f), section 243(e), section 212(d)(5)(C), and section 241(a)(2)(B).
What the document actually says
“For purposes of this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.”
That sentence, in plain words
A state counts as hurt if it loses money. More than $100 is enough.
What this is about
Harm is what a state must show to bring a suit. The same words show up in each new part that this section adds.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 3 in the PDF
What the document says
“``(3) Certain actions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an action brought pursuant to section 235(b)(3), subsections (e) or (f) of section 236, or section 241(a)(2)(B).''”
Subsection (f) of section 3 amends section 242(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(f)) by adding a new paragraph (3). It provides that paragraph (1) of that subsection does not apply to an action brought under section 235(b)(3), under subsection (e) or (f) of section 236, or under section 241(a)(2)(B), the provisions this Act adds. What paragraph (1) itself says is not recorded here, because that statute is not indexed on this site.
What the document actually says
“``(3) Certain actions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an action brought pursuant to section 235(b)(3), subsections (e) or (f) of section 236, or section 241(a)(2)(B).''”
That sentence, in plain words
One old limit on court orders is switched off. It does not apply to the new suits this law sets up.
What this is about
The limit sits in an older law about court orders. This part lists the new suits it does not reach.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Each new right of action the section creates, one entry per subsection: over the detention and removal requirements for applicants for admission, over a release or a grant of bond or parole, over the visa requirement in section 243(d), over the limits on parole, and over detention during the removal period. Also indexed: the two rules that recur inside every one of them, expedited disposition and the $100 harm floor; the transfer of the parole authority in section 212(d)(5) from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security; the word changes made to section 236(e); and the new paragraph switching off the injunction limit in section 242(f)(1) for these suits.
Purely mechanical amendments. Redesignating section 235(b)(3) as section 235(b)(4), and labeling the existing text of section 241(a)(2) as subparagraph (A) under the heading 'In general', are renumbering steps that create no new duty, so they are named here and not recorded as separate entries.
Every subsection of this section works by amending a different provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act: sections 235(b), 236, 243, 212(d)(5), 241(a)(2), and 242(f). None of those statutes is indexed on this site, so what any of them said before this Act or says after it is not recorded here. The words quoted below are the words this Act inserts. The expedited disposition sentence and the $100 harm sentence are quoted once each, from subsection (a); near-identical copies of both appear in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).
