The PATROL Act prohibits the Attorney General from bringing or maintaining any civil action under sections 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401, 403) against a State for measures to build, construct, erect, or otherwise install a physical barrier along that State’s international border when the purpose is to prevent aliens from entering in violation of immigration laws or to protect the State’s territory. The prohibition explicitly covers actions that are pending on the date of enactment.
The bill is narrowly drafted: it targets only civil actions by the Attorney General under the two cited 1899 Act provisions and defines “barrier” broadly (including walls, fences, floating buoys). It does not appropriate funds, authorize construction, or expressly alter other federal permits or criminal statutes, which creates legal and operational ambiguities about how federal regulatory and permitting regimes will interact with state-built border works.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars the Department of Justice from initiating or continuing civil lawsuits under 33 U.S.C. 401 or 403 against a State that builds or installs a physical barrier along its international border for the stated purposes of preventing unlawful entry or protecting State territory. That protection applies to suits already pending when the law takes effect.
Who It Affects
Border States that undertake construction of walls, fences, or floating barriers; the Department of Justice, which loses a specific enforcement tool; and private contractors or local authorities engaged by States to build barrier structures. Federal regulatory bodies that administer navigable-waters permits will face new practical constraints.
Why It Matters
The measure strips a long-used federal civil enforcement route for stopping unauthorized structures in navigable waters when the defendant is a State, raising separation-of-powers and federalism questions and potentially reshaping the interplay between federal permitting regimes and state border security actions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PATROL Act takes a single, targeted step: it forbids the Attorney General from suing a State under two sections of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act that have been used to challenge structures in navigable waters. Those sections (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403) can support civil suits seeking injunctions or removal of obstructions; this bill removes that remedy when the defendant is a State and the structure is a border ‘barrier’ built to stop unlawful entry or to protect State territory.
The prohibition is forward- and backward-looking: the text covers actions that are pending on the date of enactment as well as future suits. The bill does not, however, authorize States to build barriers, appropriate money for construction, or change other federal statutes.
It also defines key terms: “barrier” includes walls, fences, and floating buoys; “alien” and “immigration laws” are tied to existing INA definitions, which anchors the bill’s scope to immigration-related purposes.Because the bill restricts only civil actions by the Attorney General under two specific statutes, it leaves a number of enforcement and regulatory channels intact but uncertain. Criminal statutes, civil suits by private parties, administrative enforcement by agencies (for example, Corps of Engineers permitting actions), and other federal statutes are not expressly precluded.
That gap raises practical questions about whether the federal government can use alternative legal routes to stop or modify state-built works and how courts will interpret the statute’s reach in disputes involving contractors, local governments, or tribal lands.Operationally, the provision is simple to apply in some cases (a State erects a fence on its border and DOJ has no civil suit remedy under 401/403) and messier in others (a State authorizes a private contractor to place a floating buoy that interferes with navigation — may DOJ sue the contractor even if it cannot sue the State?). The bill’s narrow wording maximizes immunity for States from a specific enforcement tool while leaving open numerous cross-cutting legal questions that would likely surface quickly in litigation and administrative decisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bars the Attorney General from bringing or maintaining any civil action under 33 U.S.C. 401 or 403 against a State for installing a barrier along that State’s international border to prevent unlawful entry or protect State territory.
The statutory bar applies to civil actions pending on the date of enactment as well as to future actions.
The bill defines “barrier” to include physical structures intended to secure the border such as walls, fences, and floating buoys, explicitly covering structures in or over navigable waters.
Key terms “alien” and “immigration laws” are incorporated by reference to their definitions in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
The measure does not appropriate construction funds, alter Corps of Engineers permitting authority, or expressly block private lawsuits or other federal statutes from being used against non‑State actors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the name “Preventing Aliens Through Rivers or Land Act” or “PATROL Act.” This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s narrow focus on border security measures and frames subsequent provisions as exceptions to federal enforcement under an Act tied to waterways.
Prohibition on DOJ civil suits under 33 U.S.C. 401 and 403
This subsection is the operative rule: the Attorney General may not bring or maintain any civil action under sections 9 or 10 of the 1899 Act against a State for building or installing a barrier along the international border for the stated immigration or territorial-protection purposes. It covers actions already pending at enactment, which immediately deprives DOJ of a remedy it might otherwise have pursued. The provision targets a specific federal enforcement tool (civil actions under those two statutory provisions) rather than broadly immunizing States from all federal legal challenges.
Definitions: alien, barrier, immigration laws
This subsection imports INA definitions for “alien” and “immigration laws,” anchoring the bill’s scope to immigration-related purposes tied to federal immigration definitions. The “barrier” definition is deliberately broad, including floating buoys as well as walls and fences, which has direct implications for structures placed in navigable waters. Because the bill defines its terms by reference to existing federal law, courts will look to INA and navigable-waters jurisprudence to interpret the statutory boundaries.
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 governments that operate along international borders — They gain immunity from a specific federal civil-enforcement mechanism (DOJ suits under 33 U.S.C. 401/403), reducing the legal risk and potential delay associated with federal injunctive actions when they build barriers.
- Contractors and suppliers engaged by States to construct barriers — Projects face less risk of a federal civil injunction tied to the 1899 Act, which can reduce procurement uncertainty and financing risk for barrier construction.
- State law enforcement and National Guard elements assisting in barrier projects — Reduced risk of federal civil litigation may speed deployment and operational planning for state-directed border-security measures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice — The statute removes a discrete enforcement tool from the Attorney General, which may force DOJ to pursue alternative, potentially more resource‑intensive or legally contestable remedies.
- Federal regulatory agencies (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers) — Although their statutory permit authority is not directly repealed, the practical effect may be weakened oversight over structures placed in navigable waters when the target actor is a State.
- Environmental groups, tribes, and local communities — They face higher hurdles to stop or modify state-built barriers when the federal civil tool is unavailable, potentially increasing environmental and navigational harms that these stakeholders would otherwise challenge.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between State autonomy to secure borders and the federal government’s statutory and regulatory authority to protect navigable waters, environmental resources, and uniform national rules. The bill protects State border-security measures from a specific federal civil remedy, resolving the immediate conflict in favor of State action while leaving open whether that should come at the cost of coherent national oversight and uniform enforcement of waterways and environmental laws.
The bill’s narrow scope produces several implementation and legal puzzles. First, it limits only civil actions by the Attorney General under two sections of the 1899 Act; it does not repeal those statutory provisions, and it does not say DOJ cannot use other statutes or administrative processes.
DOJ could attempt to rely on alternative federal laws, criminal statutes, or administrative enforcement (permits, certifications) to address navigational or environmental harms — setting up immediate litigation over whether the PATROL Act was intended to oust those alternatives.
Second, the statute bars suits “against a State,” but it does not expressly shield private contractors, local governments, or other non‑State actors who physically place barriers at the State’s direction. That drafting choice invites strategic responses: the federal government could sidestep the bar by suing contractors or conditioning federal permits and funds.
The difference in remedy availability will matter in practice and is likely to spawn litigation about agency authority, preemption, and whether state authorization converts third parties into de facto State actors for enforcement purposes.
Finally, because the bill does not appropriate funds or create an affirmative federal grant of authority to build, States that proceed without federal permits face exposure under other regimes (environmental statutes, commerce-clause jurisprudence, treaty obligations). The result is a partial immunization that resolves one enforcement pathway while leaving a tangle of regulatory and constitutional questions unresolved — exactly the kinds of issues that courts and agencies will have to sort out after enactment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.