The bill amends the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. §2674) to create a direct civil remedy against the United States where an officer or agent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—or any person acting under their direction—subjects anyone within U.S. jurisdiction to the deprivation of constitutional rights. It expressly waives sovereign immunity for such claims, permits suits in law or equity (including punitive damages), and removes the FTCA’s administrative-claim requirement for these actions.
The measure matters because it materially changes the accountability framework for immigration enforcement. By channeling constitutional tort claims against CBP and ICE into federal court without administrative exhaustion and by authorizing punitive damages and specified funding for awards, the bill shifts litigation incentives, creates a new fiscal exposure for federal appropriations tied to immigration enforcement, and raises open questions about how existing FTCA exceptions and doctrines like qualified immunity will interact with the statutory waiver.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a paragraph into 28 U.S.C. §2674 that makes the United States liable when CBP or ICE officers (or persons acting under their direction) deprive anyone in the U.S. of constitutional rights, allows actions at law or in equity including punitive damages, and removes the FTCA §2675(a) administrative-claim requirement for those suits.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CBP, ICE, the Department of Homeland Security’s legal and budget offices, federal courts that will hear these claims, and individuals (citizens and noncitizens) who allege constitutional violations during immigration enforcement. It also creates new work for civil-rights litigators and changes risk profiles for DHS operations.
Why It Matters
This bill creates an explicit statutory route to sue the federal government for constitutional harms caused by border and immigration enforcement, overriding the usual FTCA barriers that have limited such claims. That alters the remedies available to victims and creates a predictable funding path for awards, with downstream operational and fiscal consequences for federal immigration enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core change is a targeted amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act that treats constitutional deprivations by CBP and ICE personnel as government-liability events. The amendment applies when an officer or agent—or any person acting under that officer’s direction—subjects an individual within U.S. jurisdiction to deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.
Unlike the standard FTCA process, the bill makes the government liable regardless of whether agency policy or custom caused the violation and regardless of whether the conduct was consistent with official policy.
Procedurally, the bill removes a major gatekeeper: it says 28 U.S.C. §2675(a) (the requirement that plaintiffs present an administrative claim to the agency before suing) does not apply to these actions. Plaintiffs can therefore proceed directly to federal court seeking relief "in an action at law, a suit in equity, or any other proper proceeding." The statute explicitly authorizes punitive damages in these cases and also preserves plaintiffs’ ability to pursue remedies against individual officers or others; it does not eliminate separate suits against individuals.The bill names where money to satisfy damage awards should come from: specific appropriations in Public Law 119–21 (Title IX and sections 100051 and 100052), and if those funds are depleted, a fallback to amounts appropriated under 31 U.S.C. §1304.
That language directs courts and agencies to particular funding sources but raises practical questions about limits and timing of payments. The amendment also includes an express waiver of sovereign immunity for CBP and ICE claims under this provision, a narrowly focused statutory change rather than a wholesale rewrite of the FTCA.Taken together, these elements create an expedited path for constitutional claims tied to immigration enforcement, expand the types of relief plaintiffs can seek (including punitive damages and equitable relief), and attach a designated funding mechanism for awards.
The bill leaves several established legal doctrines—such as qualified immunity for individual officers, FTCA statutory exceptions generally, and statutes of limitation—unaddressed, which will shape litigation strategies and judicial interpretation going forward.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 28 U.S.C. §2674 to make the United States liable for constitutional deprivations committed by CBP or ICE officers, agents, or persons acting under their direction.
It waives the FTCA’s administrative-claim requirement by stating that 28 U.S.C. §2675(a) does not apply to civil actions authorized under the new paragraph.
The statute explicitly permits plaintiffs to seek punitive damages and allows suits at law, suits in equity, or "any other proper proceeding.", Monetary awards are to be paid from specified appropriations in Public Law 119–21 (Title IX and sections 100051 and 100052), with a fallback to amounts appropriated under 31 U.S.C. §1304 if those funds are depleted.
Liability attaches "regardless of whether a policy or custom of the Department of Homeland Security caused the violation" and "without regard to whether the officer, agent or other person was acting consistent with an official policy, practice, or custom.".
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s name: the "ICE and CBP Constitutional Accountability Act." This is a standard heading but signals the bill’s narrow focus on constitutional accountability tied to immigration enforcement agencies.
Findings
Lists Congress’s findings about alleged constitutional harms by ICE and CBP (due process violations, racial profiling, warrantless searches, privacy and speech intrusions) and states that civil suits provide remedies. Findings do not themselves create legal rights but frame congressional intent and will inform statutory interpretation and legislative history should courts need it.
Amendment to 28 U.S.C. §2674 — scope of liability
Inserts a new paragraph into §2674 making the United States liable when CBP or ICE officers (or persons acting under their direction) deprive anyone of constitutional rights. The wording broadens covered actors (officers, agents, or those acting under direction) and ties liability to constitutional or statutory rights rather than the common-law torts FTCA typically addresses; it also disclaims reliance on agency policies or customs as a precondition for liability.
Remedies, administrative exhaustion, and punitive damages
Specifies the forms of relief: actions at law, suits in equity, or other appropriate proceedings, and explicitly allows punitive damages. It also states that 28 U.S.C. §2675(a)—the FTCA administrative-claim prerequisite—does not apply to these claims, enabling immediate filing in federal court rather than requiring agency notice and administrative adjudication first.
Funding and waiver of sovereign immunity
Directs monetary awards to come from specified appropriations in Public Law 119–21 (Title IX and sections 100051 and 100052) and, if exhausted, from amounts appropriated under 31 U.S.C. §1304. It also states that the paragraph constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to CBP and ICE for claims brought under this section, and clarifies that the amendment does not preclude other remedies against individual officers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights 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
- Individuals (noncitizens and citizens) subjected to constitutional violations during immigration or border enforcement: They gain a direct federal remedy, the ability to seek punitive damages, and can sue without first exhausting administrative FTCA claims.
- Civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy organizations: The statutory waiver and removal of administrative hurdles strengthens litigation leverage, increases settlement leverage, and provides a clearer path for systemic claims.
- Private plaintiffs’ attorneys and public-interest litigators: The bill creates a predictable vehicle and funding source for constitutional-tort litigation against federal immigration enforcement actors, expanding potential caseloads and fee opportunities.
- Federal judges and courts handling civil-rights litigation: Courts receive a statutory basis to entertain constitutional claims directly against the United States in contexts where sovereign immunity previously blocked or complicated relief.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Treasury and taxpayers: The statute directs payment from specified appropriations (and a statutory fallback), creating a new fiscal exposure for damages and punitive awards tied to immigration enforcement activity.
- Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and ICE operations: Increased litigation risk and potential monetary liability could change operational decision-making, increase legal-defense costs, and prompt resource reallocation toward risk mitigation.
- DHS and agency legal offices: Expect increased defense workload, potential need for additional appropriations for defense and settlements, and complex litigation over scope, exceptions, and remedies.
- Federal courts and the judiciary: A likely increase in filings alleging constitutional deprivations at the border will add to court dockets and may require careful development of new precedents about scope, remedies, and defenses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening individual accountability for constitutional abuses at the border—by removing sovereign-immunity and administrative barriers and allowing punitive damages—and preserving the government’s ability to perform border-enforcement functions without debilitating fiscal liability, administrative paralysis, or operational chill; the statute forces trade-offs between deterrence and operational discretion that courts and agencies will have to reconcile.
The bill resolves one long-standing barrier—sovereign immunity for constitutional harms tied to ICE/CBP—while leaving several doctrinal and practical questions open. It does not expressly repeal FTCA statutory exceptions (for example, the discretionary function exception) or address how those exceptions interact with the new waiver language.
Courts will be asked to decide whether the amendment displaces those exceptions, or whether defendants can still avail themselves of traditional FTCA defenses. Similarly, the bill authorizes suits "in equity" and "any other proper proceeding," but it does not define scope or procedures for injunctive relief, nor does it specify whether particular remedies (such as declaratory relief or preliminary injunctive relief) carry distinctive standards when the sovereign immunity waiver is invoked.
The funding language routes awards to specified appropriations in Public Law 119–21 and then to 31 U.S.C. §1304 as a fallback, which signals congressional intent to attach payouts to immigration enforcement budgets. That raises logistics and constitutional questions about payment timing, availability of funds, and whether awards will be limited by appropriation levels—issues that could produce litigation over the government’s payment obligations.
Finally, the bill does not address retroactivity, the statute of limitations applicable to these new causes of action, or how qualified immunity will apply to parallel suits against individual officers; plaintiffs will still face established hurdles in individual-actor litigation, and defendants will likely assert qualified immunity and other defenses while litigating the government’s statutory waiver.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.