The PAPERS Act of 2026 inserts a new section into the Immigration and Nationality Act that forces the Department of Homeland Security to give back identification documents taken from someone while in immigration custody when that person is released. The statute covers passports, permanent resident cards, employment authorization documents, birth certificates, driver’s licenses, Social Security cards and “similar” government-issued IDs, and it requires DHS to return those items to the individual at release except in narrowly stated circumstances.
This is a targeted operational reform: it removes a routine reason DHS has used to hold identity documents during and after detention and creates a short, transparent process when DHS does retain a document. For practitioners, it changes release checklists, evidence procedures, and detainee intake/outtake workflows; for advocates and detained individuals it reduces a common barrier to reentry into the community (accessing benefits, work, travel, and counsel).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the INA by adding section 236B, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to return each covered document taken from an individual while in DHS custody when the individual is released. The obligation is framed as a duty tied to release — not a discretionary retention policy.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to ICE and CBP officers, detention facility operators and contractors, immigration detainees and their lawyers, and consular offices that certify or reissue identity documents. State and local agencies that accept federal IDs may see more individuals presenting original documents at intake.
Why It Matters
Requiring return of documents reduces practical barriers to work, housing, and legal representation after release and injects transparency into DHS’s custody practices. It also forces DHS to make quick legal determinations about fraud, evidentiary needs, or statutory disqualification for possession of a document.
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 simple rule: if DHS takes your passport, green card, EAD, birth certificate, driver’s license, Social Security card or a similar government-issued ID while you are in immigration custody, DHS must give it back when you are released. The text places the duty on the Secretary of Homeland Security and ties the obligation to the act of release itself, rather than to some later administrative process.
There are three concrete carve-outs. DHS can keep a document if it determines the document is fraudulent; if keeping it is necessary because the document is contraband or evidence in a pending criminal proceeding; or if federal law already makes the individual ineligible to possess the document.
When DHS retains a document, the statute requires the agency to give the person a written explanation of why it kept the item and a certified copy of the document — unless some other law forbids producing a copy.The bill also clarifies what counts as a covered document by listing common identity documents and including a catchall for similar government-issued documents. Importantly, the statute expressly says that “operational convenience” or a future immigration enforcement action are not valid reasons to hold onto a document after release, closing a common administrative justification for indefinite retention.Practically, the measure forces DHS to change several day‑to‑day procedures: property logs and inventories must be reconciled at release, staff must be trained to make quick legal determinations about document status, and facilities must provide written explanations and certified copies when they withhold documents.
The statute does not prescribe a damages remedy or detailed enforcement mechanism; it creates a duty that will require DHS to adopt implementing procedures and could generate litigation over ambiguity in phrases such as “upon release” and “no longer legally entitled to possess.”Finally, the bill makes a brief clerical amendment to the INA’s table of contents to insert the new section number, ensuring the provision is codified in chapter 4 of title II.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new provision is codified as section 236B of the Immigration and Nationality Act and added to chapter 4 of title II.
The statute defines covered documents to include: original passports, permanent resident cards, employment authorization documents, birth certificates, driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and “any other similar government‑issued document.”, DHS may retain a covered document only in three situations: the document is fraudulent; it is contraband or evidence in a pending criminal proceeding; or the individual is no longer legally entitled under federal law to possess it.
When DHS keeps a document under one of those exceptions, the agency must provide the person a written explanation of the applicable exception and a certified copy of the document, unless another law prohibits providing that copy.
The statute expressly bars using 'operational convenience' or the possibility of future immigration enforcement as a reason to retain documents after an individual is released.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name 'Protecting All Personal Effects and Records from Seizure Act of 2026' or 'PAPERS Act of 2026.' This is a standard short-title provision and does not create substantive obligations.
Creates new statutory home for duty to return documents
The bill inserts a new section into chapter 4 of title II of the INA. That placement ties the rule to existing custody and release provisions, signaling Congress intended the duty to operate alongside other release obligations. For operators and counsel, the new section number is the primary citation to use in compliance and litigation.
Affirmative duty to return covered documents on release
This subsection imposes the central obligation: upon releasing an individual from DHS custody, the Secretary must return each covered document taken from that person while in custody. The language ties the duty to the act of release, which suggests the return should occur as part of the out‑processing workflow, though the statute does not spell out a minute‑by‑minute timetable.
Narrow exceptions and procedural guarantees when DHS retains a document
Subsection (b) lists the three grounds on which DHS may retain a covered document (fraudulence, contraband/evidence in a pending criminal case, or lack of legal entitlement). Subsection (c) requires DHS to provide a written explanation of the applicable exception and a certified copy of the retained document unless another law forbids doing so. Practically, this creates a paper trail that detainees, counsel, and advocates can use to challenge retention decisions.
Definition of covered documents and ban on operational convenience
Subsection (d) provides a non‑exhaustive list of documents considered 'covered,' then sweeps in 'similar' government IDs. Subsection (e) closes a loophole by specifying that 'operational convenience' or an anticipated enforcement action cannot justify retaining a document after release. That language limits administrative discretion and reshapes custody checklists and evidence handling policies.
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
- Released noncitizens and detainees — Regaining original identity documents at release removes immediate obstacles to obtaining housing, work, medical care, and reestablishing legal status, reducing dependence on temporary paperwork.
- Immigration attorneys and legal services organizations — Access to originals or certified copies speeds verifications, supports bond and asylum applications, and reduces time spent reconstructing clients’ identities.
- Community service providers and employers — Receiving clients with original or certified ID improves intake accuracy and reduces administrative hold‑ups when verifying identity or eligibility.
- Consular offices and foreign governments — Faster return or certification of lost documents eases passport replacement and consular assistance; a clear statutory duty can streamline consular communications with DHS.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS components (ICE, CBP) and detention contractors — They must change intake/outtake procedures, maintain secure storage and tracking systems, train staff to make legal determinations, and prepare written explanations and certified copies, all of which have staffing and resource consequences.
- Prosecutors and criminal investigators — When a document is evidence, agencies must balance retention with the certified‑copy remedy and maintain chain‑of‑custody, potentially increasing coordination costs with DHS’s civil custody operations.
- DHS legal and records units — The 'unless prohibited by law' caveat will force legal reviews in some cases (e.g., national security or sealed evidence), creating additional workload and potential delays in producing certified copies or explanations.
- Budgetary stakeholders — The bill imposes operational changes without an explicit appropriation; facilities and field offices will need funds for new systems and personnel time to comply.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate priorities—protecting individuals’ access to identity papers that are essential for reintegration, dignity, and legal representation, versus preserving law enforcement’s ability to retain evidence and manage immigration enforcement efficiently. The statute favors immediate return and transparency but leaves unresolved risks to criminal investigations and creates practical trade‑offs about when a certified copy is an adequate substitute for an original.
The statute’s favored terms are compact but leave important implementation questions. First, 'upon releasing' is not defined.
Does the duty require handing documents to the person at the physical moment they walk out the facility door, or does it allow short administrative post‑release steps (mailing, pickup at a local office)? That ambiguity affects staffing, security procedures, and liability if documents are lost in transit.
Second, the interplay between retention for criminal evidence and the statutory requirement to provide a certified copy raises practical tensions. Certified copies may be insufficient for travel or some administrative processes; conversely, returning an original could undermine evidence preservation.
The bill tries to thread this needle by insisting on certified copies and written explanations, but it does not create a contemporaneous adjudicatory mechanism or set time limits for how long documents may be retained pending prosecution.
Third, the phrase 'no longer legally entitled to possess the document under Federal law' is capacious. It can encompass revoked passports, rescinded immigration documents, or statutory ineligibilities, but it also invites litigation over retroactive disqualification.
Finally, the bill contains no express enforcement provision or private right of action, so compliance pressure will likely come from administrative directives within DHS, inspector general reviews, and private litigation under general administrative law principles rather than a new statutory penalty regime.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.