HR-10011-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Sponsored by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
What it does
This bill would prohibit Department of Homeland Security officers and anyone acting under DHS authority from seizing, detaining, arresting, or conducting investigatory stops of individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, location at informal employment sites (such as bus stops or agricultural areas), participation in a particular job or hobby, or use of a language other than English or English spoken with an accent. It would also create a new legal remedy: individuals in removal proceedings who believe DHS violated this prohibition could request a hearing in federal district court, and if the judge finds a violation occurred, the removal proceedings against that individual would be dismissed.
Who benefits
Unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants who are Hispanic, Latino, or otherwise perceived as foreign-born, who may currently be subject to stops based on appearance or language. Non-citizen day laborers, agricultural workers, and others in informal employment sectors. Naturalized citizens and U.S.-born individuals who speak with an accent or speak languages other than English and have been stopped despite legal status. Civil liberties organizations that have sought judicial enforcement mechanisms for anti-profiling norms. Immigration attorneys who would gain a new procedural tool to challenge removals. Federal district courts, which would gain jurisdiction over a new class of claims.
Who is hurt
DHS and its component agencies (CBP, ICE) would face new legal constraints on enforcement operations and increased litigation exposure. Immigration courts and federal district courts could face increased caseloads from hearing requests. Taxpayers would bear the cost of additional federal litigation. Communities where DHS argues that location-based or language-based cues are operationally relevant to enforcement could see reduced enforcement activity. Individuals who support stricter immigration enforcement may view the bill as reducing DHS's operational flexibility. Employers in sectors like agriculture and construction who rely on DHS enforcement as a deterrent to unauthorized employment may see indirect effects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that using race, ethnicity, language, or presence at a day-labor site as a basis for enforcement stops is constitutionally suspect and empirically ineffective — it sweeps up U.S. citizens and lawful residents alongside unauthorized immigrants, as documented in ACLU and DHS Inspector General reports on immigration enforcement operations. They contend that the bill simply codifies existing constitutional equal protection norms into an enforceable statutory remedy, and that without a dismissal mechanism, the prohibition would be toothless — individuals would have no practical way to vindicate their rights once removal proceedings are already underway.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad categorical prohibitions — covering location at a bus stop, participation in agricultural work, or use of Spanish — would severely hamper legitimate, lawful enforcement operations where such contextual factors are one of many reasonable indicators used by trained agents. They contend that the dismissal remedy is disproportionate: even if a stop involved an improper factor, dismissing removal proceedings entirely means individuals who are unlawfully present face no immigration consequence, effectively creating an exclusionary rule that immigration law has never recognized and that the Supreme Court has not required under the Due Process Clause.
Constitutional context
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits the federal government from engaging in arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, and courts have recognized that race-based stops raise equal protection concerns even in the immigration context. However, under Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the executive branch retains broad discretion over immigration enforcement, and courts apply deferential review. The bill's dismissal remedy — routing claims through Article III district courts rather than immigration courts — also implicates the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and raises questions about whether Congress is restructuring the removal adjudication system in ways that could be challenged under separation of powers principles. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any DHS regulations implementing this statute would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict DHS (executive branch) enforcement authority; federal district courts would gain new oversight power over removal proceedings, creating a judicial check on DHS operations that currently runs primarily through immigration courts within the executive branch.
Historical precedent
The End Racial and Religious Profiling Act (ERRPA) has been introduced in multiple Congresses since 2001 and would similarly prohibit federal law enforcement profiling, but has never been enacted; no directly analogous statute with a removal-dismissal remedy has been passed into law.