The bill amends INA section 287 to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the Attorney General, to contract with States so that state-licensed attorneys can perform certain Department of Homeland Security counsel functions (Office of the Principal Legal Advisor work) in removal proceedings, provided the State pays the costs. The agreement must include training and certification, state attorneys remain under DHS direction and supervision, they may use federal facilities if agreed, and DHS may not accept services that displace Federal employees.
State attorneys are not treated as federal employees except for limited tort and injury-compensation purposes, but are deemed to act under color of federal authority for immunity and liability determinations.
Separately, the bill substantially expands and clarifies the federal definition of “aggravated felony,” adding many offenses (including broader drug- and property-related crimes, firearms trafficking, war crimes, torture, genocide, and child-soldier recruitment), revises how “particularly serious crime” is treated, and makes aggravated felonies explicit grounds for inadmissibility. The amendments apply to past, present, and future offenses and removal proceedings.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes written DHS-State agreements allowing state attorneys (licensed and DHS-qualified) to represent DHS in specified removal hearings, subject to DHS supervision and state payment. Separately, it broadens the statutory aggravated felony definition and ties it more directly to inadmissibility and determinations of “particularly serious crime.”
Who It Affects
State attorneys and state governments that sign agreements, DHS (OPLA) staffing and supervision, noncitizens facing removal where State-law convictions are relevant, and immigration defense counsel. It also affects any person with convictions that the amended aggravated-felony language reaches.
Why It Matters
This shifts some frontline immigration litigation capacity toward state-supplied counsel, creating a new federal–state enforcement partnership while changing the legal categories that trigger deportation and inadmissibility—potentially increasing removals and narrowing relief.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a statutory mechanism for DHS to enter written agreements with States that allow state-licensed attorneys to carry out functions normally performed by Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys in removal proceedings. Those state attorneys must be certified by DHS as qualified, receive training in federal immigration law, and act under DHS direction and supervision.
The State bears the cost of those attorneys, and DHS cannot accept such services if they would displace federal employees. Agreements may permit use of federal property when both parties agree.
The text sets out specific agreement requirements: adherence to federal law, written certification of training, and an explicit statement that state attorneys have no independent prosecutorial or policymaking discretion. The statute limits the employment-status effects: state attorneys are not federal employees generally, but they are covered by the federal injury-compensation regime and the Federal Tort Claims Act for tort purposes; at the same time, actions taken under the agreement are treated as taken under color of federal authority for immunity and liability determinations in civil suits.The section defining the covered proceedings confines the state-attorney role to two categories: (1) removal proceedings under section 238 when the alien is located in a federal, state, or local correctional facility in a partnering State; and (2) certain section 240 proceedings where State-law convictions form the basis for inadmissibility or deportability, or could affect eligibility for immigration relief, but only to the extent DHS has an agreement with that State.
These limitations create a geographically and fact-specific scope for state participation rather than a blanket transfer of OPLA functions.Separately, the bill overhauls the aggravated felony definition in INA 101(a)(43). It broadens drug offense coverage to include state offenses involving substances classified under state law, expands property and theft categories (including various forms of fraud and embezzlement) when the sentence is at least one year or when the actual circumstances show such conduct, incorporates additional firearms offenses (including straw purchasing and trafficking), and adds international-criminal categories such as war crimes, torture, genocide, and recruitment of child soldiers.
The bill also amends related sections to make aggravated felonies an explicit inadmissibility ground and to treat any aggravated felony conviction as, by statute, a “particularly serious crime” for withholding/certain protections—while leaving a regulatory role to DHS and DOJ to designate additional offenses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DHS may enter written agreements with States to authorize state-licensed, DHS-qualified attorneys to perform OPLA functions in removal proceedings, but the State must pay the cost.
State attorneys acting under an agreement must be trained, certify adherence to federal law, have no independent prosecutorial or policymaking discretion, and remain under DHS direction and supervision.
The authorized work is limited to (a) section 238 removal proceedings for aliens in correctional facilities within a partnering State and (b) section 240 proceedings where a State-law conviction is the basis for inadmissibility/deportability or may affect relief eligibility, only in States with agreements.
State officers performing these functions are generally not federal employees (except for federal injury compensation and FTCA tort purposes), but are viewed as acting under federal authority for purposes of liability and immunity determinations.
The bill substantially broadens the statutory aggravated-felony list—adding broader drug and property offenses, specific firearms trafficking crimes, and international crimes like war crimes and torture—and makes aggravated felony an explicit grounds for inadmissibility and for treating a conviction as a ‘particularly serious crime.’.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the State Partnerships to Enhance Removal of Criminal Aliens Act. This is solely nominal but signals the bill’s dual focus on state–federal enforcement partnerships and criminal-alien removals.
DHS–State agreements to assign OPLA functions to state attorneys
Adds a new subsection authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the Attorney General, to enter written agreements permitting state officers or employees who are licensed attorneys and DHS-qualified to perform certain OPLA attorney functions in removal proceedings. The provision requires written agreements to specify powers, duties, duration, and the DHS supervising official, and to include certification of training and adherence to federal law. It also prohibits accepting state services that would displace federal employees and allows use of federal facilities only if the agreement allows it. Practically, this subsection creates a contracting framework with specific protective clauses to maintain DHS control over prosecutorial direction while shifting personnel and funding responsibility to States.
Training, supervision, employment status, and liability rules
Spell out that state attorneys must be certified as trained in relevant federal immigration law, have no independent policymaking discretion, and will act under DHS supervision. The statute treats these state attorneys as non‑federal employees for most purposes, but extends limited federal employee protections (chapter 81, title 5) and FTCA tort coverage; at the same time, actions taken under the agreement count as acting under color of federal authority for immunity and liability analyses. Those mechanics create a mixed legal status intended to protect the federal interest while limiting state employee claims—but they also reshape who bears risk for injuries and lawsuits tied to immigration representation.
Limits on the set of removal cases state attorneys may handle
Specifies two concrete loci where state attorneys can serve: section 238 proceedings when the alien is in a correctional facility within a partnering State, and section 240 proceedings when State-law convictions underpin admissibility/deportability or may affect relief eligibility—only for States with agreements. By tethering authority to correctional-facility detentions and State-law-related removals, the bill narrows potential deployment but creates targeted expansion where DHS and State criminal justice systems intersect.
Revisions to the aggravated felony definition and related provisions
Overhauls INA 101(a)(43) by expanding categories that qualify as aggravated felonies: broader drug offenses (including state offenses involving substances classified under state law), property offenses such as theft and burglary defined by jurisdictional law, firearms trafficking and straw-purchase offenses, and international crimes (war crimes, torture, genocide, child-soldier recruitment). It also amends inadmissibility and other provisions to treat aggravated felonies as explicit grounds for inadmissibility and to treat aggravated-felony convictions as generally constituting ‘particularly serious crime’ for withholding and related protections, while delegating additional designations to DOJ/DHS regulation. The section includes an explicit retroactivity/applicability clause covering past and pending matters.
Severability
Standard severability clause preserving other provisions if any part is held unconstitutional. This preserves the remainder of the Act in the event of judicial invalidation of specific provisions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State attorneys and state legal offices that wish to support immigration enforcement: the bill authorizes them to represent DHS in defined removal proceedings, expanding their role and influence over removals tied to state-law convictions.
- State governments seeking greater control over enforcement of noncitizen criminality: States that enter agreements gain operational leverage to ensure DHS litigation aligns with state enforcement priorities and can allocate state resources to accelerate removals.
- DHS/OPLA in partner States (short-term capacity): DHS may gain immediate litigation capacity in targeted settings (correctional facilities and State-law–based removals) without directly hiring additional federal counsel, allowing DHS to shift caseload to trained state attorneys.
- Victims or communities seeking expedited removal of noncitizen offenders: where agreements are used, removal cases based on state convictions may proceed faster with locally supplied counsel familiar with the underlying criminal record and incarceration context.
Who Bears the Cost
- State governments and taxpayers: States must pay the salaries, training, and administrative costs for state attorneys performing DHS counsel functions and may also incur political and litigation costs if their attorneys' actions produce controversy.
- Federal OPLA workforce and institutional consistency: while the bill forbids displacement of federal employees, OPLA may face supervisory and coordination burdens, and long-term reliance on state counsel could degrade uniform federal enforcement norms and training pipelines.
- Noncitizens subject to removal: expanded aggravated-felony definitions and the broad application clause increase the number of convictions that can trigger inadmissibility or removal and reduce avenues for withholding/relief, particularly for those with older or state-law convictions.
- Defense counsel and courts: the mixed supervisory and liability regime could generate novel litigation over whether specific state-attorney actions are covered by federal immunity, who supervises what, and whether due process protections were respected—creating complexity for defense strategies and judicial review.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between accelerating and localizing enforcement—using State legal resources to increase removals tied to state convictions—and preserving a uniform, federally accountable immigration enforcement system that protects noncitizens' due process rights; empowering States to help DHS can improve capacity and speed but risks patchwork enforcement, politicized prosecutions, and legal challenges over supervision, immunity, and the retroactive reach of a significantly broadened aggravated‑felony definition.
The bill attempts to thread a narrow needle—leveraging state legal personnel while preserving DHS control—but it leaves several practical and legal questions unresolved. The supervisory relationship is specified in general terms (direction and supervision by DHS), but the statute does not enumerate performance standards, reporting requirements, or audit rights that would be needed to ensure consistent federal legal positions and quality control across jurisdictions.
States will vary in training capacity, prosecutorial culture, and political priorities, so agreements can produce uneven representation of DHS positions and potential conflicts where State prosecutors favor broader or narrower enforcement than DHS policy.
On the aggravated-felony side, the statutory expansion is sweeping and the express retroactivity clause means convictions that predate enactment can suddenly carry aggravated-felony consequences for immigration relief and inadmissibility. Although immigration law traditionally applies new civil consequences to prior criminal convictions, the breadth of added offenses (especially by including state-defined drug and property crimes and lowering focus on sentence length in some places) risks treating widely varying state offenses as deportable felonies.
That creates fairness and predictability concerns that will invite litigation over categorization, especially when state statutes differ in elements and sentencing schemes. Finally, because the bill makes state attorneys act under color of federal authority for immunity, States might be insulated from certain suits but could face political and reputational fallout if local actors appear to be enforcing federal immigration policy, raising Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering disputes in some courts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.