HR-4711-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Attorney General to begin removal proceedings as promptly as possible after a Notice to Appear is filed with an immigration court. For individuals convicted of a deportable offense, proceedings would need to begin as soon as possible after conviction. Most significantly, the bill would require all immigration court proceedings to be completed within 15 days of being commenced, overriding any other existing law — including asylum processing timelines.
Who benefits
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which would gain a statutory mandate for faster case resolution. Communities and advocates who argue that a backlogged immigration court system delays enforcement outcomes. Taxpayers who fund immigration detention, if faster proceedings reduce the length of detention stays. Individuals in removal proceedings who are ultimately found not removable, who would receive faster resolution of their cases.
Who is hurt
Individuals in removal proceedings who need time to secure legal representation, gather evidence, or prepare a defense — particularly asylum seekers, who currently have a statutory right to a full hearing under INA §208(d)(5)(A), which this bill would override. Immigration attorneys and legal aid organizations, who would have far less time to prepare cases. Immigration judges, who would face an effectively unworkable caseload mandate given the current backlog of over 3 million pending cases. Non-citizens with complex cases involving family ties, long-term residency, or pending applications for relief. Individuals who may face wrongful removal due to inadequate time to present their claims.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the immigration court backlog — exceeding 3 million pending cases as of 2025 — has rendered the removal system functionally inoperable, allowing individuals ordered removed to remain in the country for years. They contend that a firm deadline creates accountability and deters meritless delay tactics, and that the "notwithstanding any other provision of law" language is necessary to prevent procedural loopholes from indefinitely postponing lawful removal orders.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a 15-day deadline to complete all immigration proceedings is constitutionally unworkable under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which guarantees non-citizens a meaningful opportunity to be heard before removal. They contend that the bill explicitly overrides asylum processing timelines under INA §208(d)(5)(A), potentially violating U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and that Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) affirms that non-citizens retain due process protections — making a blanket 15-day cutoff vulnerable to immediate legal challenge.
Constitutional context
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that non-citizens receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard before removal; a 15-day hard deadline for all proceedings — regardless of case complexity — raises serious questions about whether that standard can be met. The bill's "notwithstanding any other provision of law" language also directly overrides existing asylum procedures under INA §208(d)(5)(A), which may conflict with statutory and treaty obligations. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the Attorney General's implementing regulations satisfy the statutory mandate without deferring to agency interpretation.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Attorney General/DOJ) gains a statutory mandate to accelerate removal proceedings; checks include federal court review of individual removal orders, due process challenges under the Fifth Amendment, and judicial review of implementing regulations under the APA without Chevron deference.
Historical precedent
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) previously established expedited removal procedures for certain non-citizens, which have been repeatedly challenged on due process grounds in federal courts.