HR-9294-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Brittany Pettersen (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from detaining any individual in a "holding room" for more than 12 hours. It defines a holding room as any secure area used for temporary confinement before intake processing, institutional appointments (such as court or medical visits), release, transfer to another facility, or removal-related transportation. The bill does not address detention conditions, staffing, or what happens after the 12-hour limit is reached.
Who benefits
Individuals detained by ICE in temporary holding rooms, including unauthorized immigrants, asylum seekers, and any other person held pending processing or transfer. Immigration attorneys and legal advocates who would have a clearer statutory basis to challenge prolonged short-term detention. Civil liberties organizations that monitor detention conditions. Detainees with medical conditions for whom extended confinement in a holding room — typically a sparse, non-residential space — poses heightened health risks.
Who is hurt
ICE and DHS operational staff who may face logistical constraints when processing surges, facility transfers, or court backlogs make the 12-hour limit difficult to meet. Detention facility administrators who would need to restructure intake workflows. Taxpayers who may bear costs if DHS must expand processing infrastructure to comply. Potentially, detainees themselves in edge cases where no compliant transfer option is immediately available, if the bill's enforcement mechanism is unclear.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that holding rooms are designed for short-term, temporary confinement — not extended stays — and typically lack beds, adequate sanitation, and basic necessities. They contend that prolonged holding room detention violates the spirit of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) recognized extends basic protections to non-citizens inside the United States. They further argue that a clear 12-hour statutory ceiling provides an enforceable, objective standard where none currently exists, reducing reliance on agency discretion that has historically gone unchecked.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a rigid 12-hour cap fails to account for operational realities — including processing surges at the border, court scheduling delays, and medical emergencies — that can make timely transfers genuinely impossible. They contend that Congress is substituting a one-size-fits-all rule for the flexible enforcement discretion the executive branch needs under its broad immigration authority, as affirmed in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), and that the bill provides no mechanism or alternative when the limit cannot be met, potentially creating legal chaos without improving actual detention conditions.