HR-6978-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 398.
Sponsored by Brad Finstad (R-MN)
What it does
This bill would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to conduct a retroactive review of immigration benefit requests that were approved between January 20, 2021, and the date the bill is enacted. The review would cover approvals granted to nationals of 40 specific countries, as well as individuals traveling on documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority. USCIS would be required to submit a report on its findings by September 15, 2026.
Who benefits
Americans who believe immigration benefits were improperly approved during the covered period and want a formal audit. Members of Congress seeking oversight of USCIS adjudication practices. Future applicants who may benefit from more consistent adjudication standards if the review identifies systemic errors. Law enforcement and national security agencies that may receive information from the review findings.
Who is hurt
Nationals of the 40 listed countries who received immigration benefits during the covered period and may face uncertainty, additional scrutiny, or potential revocation of previously approved benefits. Palestinian Authority document holders in the same situation. USCIS, which would bear the administrative burden and cost of reviewing a potentially large volume of past approvals. Immigration attorneys and applicants currently in the pipeline whose cases may be deprioritized as agency resources shift to the review. Immigrant communities from the listed countries who may experience anxiety or disruption even if their benefits are ultimately confirmed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure immigration benefits were granted in accordance with the law, and that a targeted review of a defined period and country list is a reasonable oversight mechanism. They contend that if approvals were made in error — whether through lax vetting, policy changes, or administrative failures — identifying and correcting those errors protects national security and the integrity of the immigration system. The country list, they argue, reflects elevated security or fraud concerns that justify heightened scrutiny.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a retroactive review targeting nationals of 40 specific countries — without individualized cause — raises serious due process concerns for people who received benefits through lawful adjudications they had every reason to rely upon. They contend the bill's country-based targeting, which includes no criteria tied to individual conduct or risk, could function as a pretext for broad-based rescission of valid approvals, and that the compressed reporting timeline (September 15, 2026) may pressure USCIS to produce findings before thorough review is possible, increasing the risk of erroneous revocations.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress broad authority to set rules for immigration benefits, and Trump v. Hawaii (2018) confirmed wide executive discretion in immigration decisions. However, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to non-citizens inside the United States, and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) affirmed that constitutional protections do not disappear simply because the subject is a non-citizen — meaning any revocations flowing from the review could face due process challenges if conducted without individualized notice and opportunity to respond.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USCIS/DHS) gains authority to review and potentially rescind previously approved benefits; checks include the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard for any resulting revocations, Fifth Amendment due process protections for affected individuals, and the congressional reporting requirement that makes findings subject to legislative oversight.
Historical precedent
The post-9/11 National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS, 2002) similarly targeted nationals of specific countries for heightened immigration scrutiny and was later suspended after findings of limited security benefit and significant civil liberties concerns.