The bill bars the Secretary of Homeland Security from taking an alien into custody before an order of removal is entered if that person is arriving at or departing from any Department of Homeland Security field office or any facility of the Executive Office for Immigration Review — unless an immigration judge determines the alien is not of good moral character under INA section 101(f). It also amends section 101(f) to prevent a finding of bad moral character based solely on unlawful presence or unlawful entry, and it prohibits publicly displaying the names of parties (other than the United States) outside immigration courtrooms or in other publicly accessible locations inside EOIR facilities.
This package changes frontline enforcement practice and court privacy rules. For enforcement, it restricts DHS custody actions at specific administrative locations and shifts a gatekeeping role to immigration judges; for adjudication and access, it reduces public exposure of litigants’ names at EOIR facilities.
The measures create operational, procedural, and privacy tradeoffs that DHS, EOIR, and immigration courts would need to address in policy, staffing, and facility operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits DHS from detaining an alien prior to the entry of a removal order when the alien is arriving at or departing from any DHS field office or EOIR facility, unless an immigration judge has determined the alien lacks good moral character. It amends INA 101(f) to bar relying solely on unlawful presence or entry as proof of bad moral character, and bans public posting of party names outside immigration courtrooms and other publicly accessible EOIR spaces.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DHS components that conduct administrative arrests (including ICE), EOIR facility operations and signage, immigration judges who must make or record good‑moral‑character determinations, and noncitizens who appear at field offices or immigration courts — including asylum seekers, detained respondents, and visitors to those sites.
Why It Matters
By curtailing in‑facility detentions, the bill limits a common enforcement venue and creates a judicially mediated exception that alters enforcement timing and custody risk. The FOIA/access and privacy implications from the EOIR signage ban also shift how the public and legal community interact with immigration dockets and litigants.
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 bright‑line rule about custody at two types of administrative locations. DHS may not place an individual into custody before a removal order is entered if the individual is simply arriving at or leaving a DHS field office or an EOIR facility — for example, to attend meetings, check in, or appear for hearings — provided the person is of good moral character.
That prohibition attaches to the moment of arrival or departure at those facilities and is framed as a pre‑removal‑order limitation on DHS’s authority to take someone into custody.
The bill builds in a single carve‑out: if an immigration judge determines the alien is not of good moral character under INA 101(f), DHS may detain. To prevent circularity or overreach, the text also changes 101(f) to clarify that unlawful presence or unlawful entry cannot be the only basis for finding someone lacks good moral character.
Practically that forces a legal determination—by an adjudicator—before the detention exception can be invoked, and it narrows the evidentiary basis for adverse moral‑character findings.On privacy and court access, the bill instructs the Attorney General to prohibit posting the names of any party other than the United States outside the courtroom or in other publicly accessible areas of EOIR facilities. That provision does not eliminate public access to hearings, but it removes a routine, easily visible list of litigant names from lobbies, check‑in kiosks, or hallway bulletin boards, shifting how parties are identified in public spaces.Operationally, the new requirements would force changes in how DHS plans enforcement around court dates and field‑office visits: arrests tied to administrative proceedings would need to be timed differently or moved offsite unless the judge has made a moral‑character finding.
EOIR and DHS would need to revise facility signage, check‑in procedures, and staff training to avoid impermissible displays and to ensure immigration judges can make the requisite determinations in a timely way. The bill leaves intact DHS authority to detain after a removal order is entered and does not address criminal arrests under separate statutes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars DHS from taking an alien into custody prior to the entry of a removal order when the alien is arriving at or departing any DHS field office or EOIR facility.
DHS may detain in those circumstances only if an immigration judge has determined the alien is not of good moral character under INA 101(f).
The bill amends INA 101(f) to specify that unlawful presence or unlawful entry cannot be the sole basis for finding an alien lacks good moral character.
The Attorney General must prohibit displaying the names of any non‑government party outside the immigration courtroom or in other publicly accessible areas of EOIR facilities.
The statutory limits apply only before a removal order is entered and do not curtail DHS authority to detain after an order of removal or to effect arrests under criminal statutes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Fundamental Immigration Fairness Act'
Provides the bill’s short title for citation. This is boilerplate but matters for internal references in implementing regulations, appropriations riders, or cross‑references in agency guidance.
Limit on detention at DHS field offices and EOIR facilities; 101(f) clarification
Subsection (a) establishes the core operational restriction: DHS may not take an alien into custody prior to entry of a removal order when the alien is arriving at or departing from any DHS field office or EOIR facility. Subsection (b) creates the exception conditioned on an immigration judge’s determination that the alien is not of good moral character. Subsection (c) amends INA 101(f) to prevent an immigration judge or other decisionmaker from relying solely on unlawful presence or unlawful entry when concluding that an alien lacks good moral character. Subsection (d) ties statutory terms to INA definitions. Practically, this section forces DHS to avoid on‑site custody in many routine interactions and requires judges to make discrete moral‑character findings before detention can proceed at those locations.
Prohibition on public display of party names at EOIR facilities
Bars the Attorney General from displaying the names of parties (other than the United States) outside the courtroom or in any other publicly accessible EOIR location. This changes long‑standing facility practices where dockets or hearing rosters are posted in lobbies, on bulletin boards, or on kiosks. The provision focuses on physical or otherwise publicly accessible displays in EOIR facilities; it does not expressly address electronic case lists or remote public access systems, leaving room for interpretive or regulatory guidance.
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
- Noncitizens who are assessed to be of good moral character: reduces the immediate risk of being taken into custody when they visit DHS field offices or EOIR facilities for routine interactions or hearings, lowering disruption to counsel access and family life.
- Asylum seekers and non‑detained court respondents: limits a common venue for administrative arrests at courthouses and field offices, making it less likely they will be arrested while attending hearings or interviews.
- Attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal aid providers: fewer in‑facility arrests reduce logistical burdens of coordinating representation, improve attorney‑client contact at EOIR sites, and lower emergency detention interventions.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS (including ICE and USCIS field offices): must change enforcement tactics, relocate arrests offsite or after removal orders, and develop new protocols and training to comply with the location‑based restriction.
- EOIR and DOJ: must implement the signage/privacy prohibition, potentially overhaul lobby and check‑in systems, and coordinate with court staff to manage access without visible party rosters.
- Immigration judges and the immigration court system: may face additional gatekeeping responsibilities to make timely good‑moral‑character determinations, increasing adjudicative workload and potential procedural challenges.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits individual liberty and privacy at administrative sites against the government’s needs for effective immigration enforcement and courtroom transparency: it protects noncitizens from in‑facility custody and from public exposure of their names, but it shifts enforcement burdens onto judges and agencies and could complicate public access and safety protocols.
The bill creates several implementation questions that could trigger litigation and operational friction. First, the phrases “arriving at” and “departing from” are broad and could be interpreted to include building entrances, parking lots, security checkpoints, and even sidewalks adjacent to facilities; agencies will need to define the spatial scope of the prohibition.
Second, conditioning detention on an immigration judge’s finding of lack of good moral character raises a procedural sequencing problem: judges normally make adjudicative findings during removal proceedings, not in advance to authorize custody. That could require emergency procedures, preliminary hearings, or written determinations that courts and DHS must coordinate.
A second cluster of tensions concerns evidence and standards. Amending 101(f) to preclude basing a bad‑character finding solely on unlawful presence narrows DHS’s evidentiary toolbox, but the bill does not define what alternative evidence suffices.
Expect disputes over what non‑immigration‑status facts constitute bad moral character. Finally, the prohibition on public displays increases privacy for respondents but may complicate public docketing and transparency, and it leaves open whether electronic posting or remote public access systems are covered, an ambiguity EOIR will have to resolve in rules or guidance.
None of these changes come with specific appropriations, so agencies must absorb costs related to training, facility retrofit, and process redesign under existing budgets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.