Grant’s Law amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any alien the Secretary determines is unlawfully present and who is arrested for offenses listed in existing INA §236(c)(1)(A)–(D) — i.e., offenses the conviction of which would make the person inadmissible under §212(a) or deportable under §237(a). The bill also changes custody language from the Attorney General to the Secretary, adds a provision governing temporary release to criminal authorities, and mandates that removal proceedings for these detainees be completed within 90 days.
This matters for DHS and EOIR operations, local jails and prosecutors, defense counsel, and noncitizens. By shifting detention to the Secretary at arrest and imposing a fixed 90‑day removal deadline, the bill both accelerates the federal removal timetable and heightens detention obligations — with direct costs for detention capacity and immediate implications for cases where an alien is arrested but later not convicted.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new subparagraph into INA §236(c) to make detention mandatory for any alien the Secretary determines is unlawfully present who is arrested for specified crimes that would render them inadmissible or deportable. It authorizes temporary release to the appropriate criminal authority but requires DHS to resume custody whenever the alien is not in that authority’s custody and to continue detention if the alien is not convicted until removal proceedings end.
Who It Affects
Unlawfully present noncitizens arrested for offenses covered by existing §236(c)(1)(A)–(D); the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE); the Executive Office for Immigration Review; state and local jails that arrest or transfer custody; criminal prosecutors whose case timing will intersect with federal immigration custody.
Why It Matters
The bill converts arrest into a near‑automatic trigger for federal detention in a broader set of cases, compresses the timeline for removal adjudication to 90 days, and therefore increases detention throughput and pressure on immigration courts and removal logistics — shifting the practical burden of immigration enforcement downstream to federal detention and adjudication systems.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Grant’s Law works by changing two parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act and adding a timing rule for removal cases. First, it adds a new clause to §236(c) that targets aliens the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be unlawfully present and who are arrested for the sorts of offenses already listed in §236(c)(1)(A)–(D).
Those subparagraphs cover crimes that, upon conviction, would make the person inadmissible under §212(a) or deportable under §237(a). The new language treats arrest plus a Secretary’s determination of unlawful presence as the moment when mandatory federal detention attaches.
Second, the bill rewrites the custodial language formerly framed around the Attorney General to center the Secretary of Homeland Security, and it creates an express rule for cases where the alien is arrested but not yet convicted. Under that rule DHS may hand the person to the appropriate criminal authority for ongoing criminal proceedings, but it must re‑take custody whenever the individual is not in the criminal authority’s custody.
If the alien is not convicted of the charged offense, DHS must nevertheless keep the person detained until removal proceedings conclude.Third, the bill imposes a strict timing requirement on removal adjudications for these detainees by amending §239(d) to require that DHS complete removal proceedings within 90 days of detention. That 90‑day clock applies only to aliens held under the new §236(c)(1)(E), creating a procedural fast track for those cases.
Practically, the effect is to convert many arrests involving unlawfully present individuals into immediate federal custody and an expedited immigration adjudication pathway.Operationally, the text ties detention to a Secretary’s determination of unlawful presence rather than to a prior conviction. That raises predictable coordination issues with criminal case schedules (arraignments, pretrial detention, plea negotiations, trials), logistical demands to transfer custody back and forth between criminal authorities and federal immigration agents, and the need for EOIR and DHS to marshal files, country of removal information, and counsel availability on a compressed timeline.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new INA §236(c)(1)(E) that makes detention mandatory when the Secretary determines an alien is unlawfully present and is arrested for offenses listed in §236(c)(1)(A)–(D).
It replaces references to the Attorney General with the Secretary of Homeland Security in §236 and adds a provision allowing DHS to release the alien to criminal authorities temporarily but requiring DHS to resume custody whenever the alien is not in that authority’s custody.
If an alien held under the new §236(c)(1)(E) is not convicted of the arresting offense, the bill requires DHS to continue detaining that alien until removal proceedings are completed.
The bill amends INA §239(d) to require DHS to complete removal proceedings for aliens detained under §236(c)(1)(E) within 90 days of detention.
Detention under the new rule is triggered at arrest plus a DHS determination of unlawful presence — not by conviction — which can produce federal detention during ongoing criminal proceedings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Grant’s Law'
This is the one‑line short title identifying the Act as 'Grant’s Law.' It carries no substantive legal effect but signals congressional intent and will appear as the Act’s public name.
New mandatory detention category and custody mechanics
This is the substantive heart of the bill. It inserts a new subparagraph (E) into INA §236(c)(1) that compels the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any alien the Secretary determines is unlawfully present who is arrested for crimes described in the adjacent subparagraphs (A)–(D) where conviction would trigger inadmissibility or deportability under §§212(a) or 237(a). Paragraph (2) is rewritten to substitute 'Secretary' for 'Attorney General' throughout, and the bill adds an express rule about arrested‑but‑not‑convicted cases permitting temporary release to criminal authorities while requiring DHS to retake custody whenever the alien is not in that authority’s custody; crucially, if the alien is not convicted DHS must continue detention until removal is complete. Practically, this creates a federal custody entitlement keyed to arrest plus an administrative finding of unlawful presence and establishes custody sequencing rules with criminal authorities.
90‑day deadline to conclude removal proceedings for these detainees
This section adds a new clause to INA §239(d) requiring DHS to complete removal proceedings within 90 days for any alien detained under the new §236(c)(1)(E). That creates an expedited track limited to this class of detainees. The provision compels faster case processing by DHS and EOIR but does not appropriate funds or detail how extensions, continuances, or logistical impediments (such as lack of travel documents or third‑country refusals) should be handled; those operational questions will fall to implementing agencies.
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
- Department of Homeland Security (ICE and enforcement components): Gains a statutory mandate to detain unlawfully present arrestees and a statutory 90‑day removal clock, increasing federal control over custody and removal timing.
- Federal prosecutors and some victim‑advocacy organizations: Potentially benefit from quicker immigration consequences that can run parallel to criminal proceedings and may increase cooperation in cases involving noncitizen suspects.
- Communities prioritizing enforcement: Those advocating for rapid removal of unlawfully present individuals accused of listed offenses will see a tighter federal process for detaining and removing such persons.
- Congressional supporters of stricter immigration enforcement: Obtain a clear statutory tool that shifts custody authority and timelines to federal agencies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security (ICE): Faces higher detention costs and bed‑space requirements because more arrests will trigger federal detention and because acquitted persons must remain detained until removal concludes.
- Executive Office for Immigration Review (immigration courts): Must process these cases on a compressed 90‑day schedule, increasing docket pressure and requiring faster scheduling, decisions, and coordination with DHS.
- State and local jails and sheriffs: Will need to coordinate transfers more frequently, manage custody handoffs, and potentially accommodate DHS requests that can complicate local criminal case timelines.
- Noncitizens arrested but not convicted: Face the risk of prolonged federal detention during and after criminal proceedings, with attendant impacts on access to counsel and family support.
- Nonprofit legal services and defense counsel: Will see higher caseloads and compressed preparation windows as removal cases must be resolved within 90 days for this cohort.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill prioritizes rapid, mandatory federal detention and expedited removals as an enforcement tool, but doing so trades off individual liberty safeguards and strains administrative capacity — forcing agencies to choose between rapid adjudication that may be procedurally imperfect and slower processes that protect rights but undermine the bill’s enforcement goals.
The bill creates several implementation and policy knots. First, it anchors mandatory detention to a Secretary's administrative determination of unlawful presence at the time of arrest — the statute does not set an evidentiary standard or a timeline for that determination.
Agencies will need to define what documentary or investigative threshold triggers mandatory custody, and inconsistent application could produce litigation and operational friction with local booking processes.
Second, the 90‑day removal deadline is administratively demanding. EOIR’s calendar, country‑of‑removal cooperation, and the process of securing travel documents can all slow cases; the statute does not provide clear mechanisms for extensions, accommodations when a removal country refuses documents, or for coordinating with ongoing criminal trials.
That creates a risk of repeated continuances, litigation over what counts as 'completion' of proceedings, or pressure to remove applicants to meet the deadline even when logistical obstacles remain. Finally, the rule that detains people who are not convicted until removal is complete raises predictable tensions between the presumption of innocence in criminal law and immigration detention policy — and it shifts costs for prolonged non‑criminal detention onto federal systems without authorizing new resources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.