Sponsors (2)
The bill strengthens civil remedies and accountability for people harmed by ICE at the potential cost of greater legal exposure and expense for agents and taxpayers and possible chilling or fragmentation of enforcement operations that could affect public safety and coordination.
Immigrants and others harmed by ICE actions can more easily sue federal agents and obtain damages because the bill removes the 'clearly established law' hurdle for constitutional claims.
Limits on qualified-immunity-type defenses increase accountability for ICE and federal immigration agents, creating stronger deterrents against rights violations.
Victims and local governments are more likely to secure civil remedies when federal immigration enforcement oversteps, reinforcing enforcement of constitutional protections at the local level.
ICE agents lose a key legal defense, substantially increasing their exposure to lawsuits and potential personal or professional liability.
Increased litigation risk could raise costs for federal agencies and taxpayers if the government indemnifies sued agents or faces more damages awards.
Removing the 'clearly established' standard may deter decisive law-enforcement action in ambiguous or fast-moving situations, potentially affecting public safety responses.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Prohibits ICE agents from using good-faith and clearly-established-law defenses in civil actions under §1983 or any federal law, increasing potential liability.
Introduced August 8, 2025 by Shri Thanedar · Last progress August 8, 2025
Eliminates two common defenses used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in civil lawsuits: a claim that the agent acted in good faith or believed the conduct was lawful, and the “clearly established” rights defense. It says those two defenses may not be used in any civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law against an ICE agent, while leaving other parts of § 1983 unchanged.