2025: When Accusation Became Enough for Imprisonment in America

How the Laken Riley Act Changed Immigration Enforcement, and Who Paid the Price

In 2025, many pregnant women were held in immigration detention while experiencing medical complications that, only a year earlier, almost certainly would have led to their release.

According to documentation released by civil liberties organizations, women are being denied adequate prenatal care while in ICE custody, leading to preventable miscarriages. Few were ever found guilty of any offense.

What makes these cases especially disturbing is not only what happened, but that it would never have happened before.

Until 2025, pregnancy was one of the clearest reasons immigration officers declined to detain someone. That safeguard existed for a reason. Immigration detention facilities are not equipped to provide safe prenatal care, and the risks of detention during pregnancy had been documented for years. In 2025, that safeguard was gone.

The reason was a vote in Congress.

How immigration enforcement worked before the Laken Riley Act

Before the Laken Riley Act, which became law on January 29th, 2025, immigration enforcement relied heavily on prosecutorial discretion. ICE officers were not required to detain every undocumented person they encountered. Mandatory detention existed, but it was narrower and generally tied to serious criminal convictions.

Discretion allowed officers and supervisors to account for real-world conditions. Pregnancy, hospitalization, chronic illness, disability, and caregiving responsibilities were widely recognized reasons to avoid detention or to use alternatives instead. People were often released without being held in detention, sometimes called release on recognizance, meaning they were allowed to remain free while their case continued.

Pregnant women were routinely released or deferred because detention posed obvious medical risks and substantial legal liability. This was not generosity. It was established practice shaped by medical guidance, court rulings, and years of litigation over detention-related harm.

Enforcement before 2025 had a safety valve. Officers could step back when detention would clearly cause harm without advancing public safety.That safety valve was removed.

What the Laken Riley Act changed

The Laken Riley Act rewrote the mandatory detention provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, replacing discretion with automatic imprisonment triggered by accusation.

Before 2025, immigration officers had discretion. They could decide not to imprison someone while their case moved forward, especially if detention would cause obvious harm.

The Laken Riley Act eliminated that discretion.

It did this by changing a section of immigration law that controls when detention is mandatory. Under the new rule, imprisonment is triggered not by a conviction, but by accusation.

Here’s what that means in practice. Under the Act, a person must be detained if an officer claims the person:

of certain offenses. The law then lists the offenses that can trigger detention, including:

On its face, that sounds like it targets serious criminals. But the next sentence is where the scope quietly explodes.

The Act says those crimes are defined:

That means state and local law controls what counts.

In many states, including Florida, “assault of a law enforcement officer” does not require physical contact. A verbal statement, a gesture, or a movement an officer claims caused fear can qualify. No injury is required. No violence is required.

So when this state-level definition is plugged into the federal detention mandate, low-level, non-violent encounters suddenly become grounds for imprisonment.

Once an ICE officer decides a person fits one of these categories, the law removes all flexibility. It directs that the Department of Homeland Security:

In legal language, “shall” means there is no choice. There is no requirement that a judge review the accusation before detention begins. There is no requirement to consider pregnancy, medical risk, hospitalization, or humanitarian need. There is no obligation to use alternatives to detention.

What used to be a judgment call became a switch.Once flipped, detention is automatic.

Why “assault of a law enforcement officer” is especially dangerous

Many people assume “assault of a law enforcement officer” means physical violence. In many states, including Florida, that assumption is incorrect. Agents in states like Florida have discretion to decide if they feel assaulted, even if it is merely by a verbal statement.

When this broad definition is imported into the Laken Riley Act, the consequences are severe. A disputed interaction, a raised voice, or an officer’s subjective interpretation of a moment can trigger mandatory detention, even when no violence occurred.

Because the Act relies on arrest or accusation rather than conviction, the breadth of state assault laws becomes a direct pipeline into imprisonment.

Accusation replaces proof

Immigration detention is classified as civil, not criminal. That distinction allows the government to operate under a far lower evidentiary standard than the criminal justice system.

Under the Laken Riley Act, ICE officers do not need to prove that a crime occurred. They do not need a conviction or even charges filed by a prosecutor. An arrest or allegation is enough to imprison someone.

If an officer is wrong, there is no immediate consequence. Judicial review, if it occurs at all, comes later, after detention has already begun and harm may already be irreversible.

This legal structure explains why, in 2025, ICE agents were seen chasing migrants through parking lots, sidewalks, and worksites without observable criminal behavior. The law does not require criminal probable cause at the front end. It incentivizes speed rather than accuracy.

A system built on accusation depends on honesty, and that is a problem

A system that allows imprisonment based on accusation alone depends entirely on the accuracy and honesty of the accuser. That assumption is not supported by the record. ICE has been repeatedly documented, by courts, journalists, and oversight bodies, misrepresenting or falsifying accounts of encounters with the public. In multiple cases, officer narratives have conflicted with video evidence, witness testimony, or contemporaneous records, and courts have rejected ICE accounts after reviewing contradictory evidence.

This matters because under the Laken Riley Act, an officer’s accusation is not merely a report, it is the trigger for mandatory imprisonment.

There is no requirement that an accusation be corroborated before detention begins. There is no immediate judicial review. At the same time, ICE operates under institutional pressure to increase arrests and detentions, metrics that are used to justify budgets and policy decisions.

When officers are incentivized to detain more people, shielded from immediate review, and empowered to imprison based on accusation alone, the system rewards aggressive enforcement and discourages caution.

Even a small rate of misrepresentation becomes catastrophic when the consequence is months of imprisonment, medical harm, family separation, or coerced deportation.

Who was actually being detained

Supporters of the Laken Riley Act justified mandatory detention by invoking violent crime.

The data from 2025 tells a very different story.

During that year, ICE detained more than 60,000 people. Only about 3% had ever been convicted of a violent crime, roughly 1,800 people.

That means approximately 58,200 detainees had no prior violent criminal convictions.

The overwhelming majority of people imprisoned under this system were not violent offenders. Many had no criminal record at all. Many were detained solely because of arrest or allegation rather than proof of guilt.

What this looked like in real life in 2025

Advocacy groups and human rights reporting have documented dire conditions in Florida ICE facilities such as the Krome Service Processing Center and Everglades Detention Center.

In Glendale, California, ICE agents waited outside a hospital room for two weeks, monitoring a patient until doctors cleared her for discharge. Nurses protested that immigration enforcement was interfering with medical care.

In Los Angeles County, ICE agents waited days or weeks in hospital lobbies for patients to be discharged. Patients and healthcare workers reported growing fear that seeking care could lead directly to detention.

In California, a hospitalized woman reported being pressured by ICE agents to declare herself medically fit for discharge under threat of isolation from family and counsel.

In Illinois, detainees described being held in degrading conditions and told they would not be released unless they signed voluntary departure paperwork.

These were not isolated incidents. They were predictable outcomes of a system redesigned to imprison first and evaluate later.

Hospitals as enforcement sites and coercion as policy

Hospitals became enforcement choke points. ICE agents waited for discharge clearance, turning medical care into a countdown to imprisonment.

Fear spread. People delayed or avoided treatment. Conditions worsened. Emergencies escalated.

At the same time, so-called “voluntary departure” surged. People signed deportation papers not because they wanted to leave, but because imprisonment offered no realistic path out. Medical vulnerability intensified that pressure. This was coercion by design.

Pregnancy, illness, and death in detention

Throughout 2025, civil liberties organizations documented miscarriages, pregnancy complications, delayed treatment, and denial of prenatal care in ICE detention facilities across multiple states.

In 2025 alone, more than 30 people died in ICE custody, with multiple deaths linked to medical neglect. Investigations documented ignored symptoms, delayed treatment, denial of medication, and failure to respond to medical emergencies in time.

ICE detention facilities had long been criticized for inadequate medical care. Expanding mandatory detention without fixing those failures made death a foreseeable outcome.

When the government takes custody of someone, it assumes responsibility for their life. In 2025, that responsibility was repeatedly breached.

A constitutional problem hiding in plain sight

The Laken Riley Act collides with a foundational constitutional principle: liberty should not be taken without proof of guilt.

Labeling detention “civil” does not erase due process. Detention based on accusation, without judicial review or individualized assessment, inverts the presumption of innocence.

What unfolded in 2025 was not an abuse of the law. It was the law operating exactly as written.

How Home Depot’s Silence is Complicity

Home Depot has become a focal point for immigration protests not because it directs federal enforcement, but because it controls the space where enforcement occurs.

Across the country, ICE agents have repeatedly conducted arrests and detentions in Home Depot parking lots, places where day laborers commonly gather seeking work. These are not public sidewalks or government buildings. They are private property, and access is governed by corporate policy.

Home Depot has never denied that immigration enforcement occurs on its property. It has also declined to clearly state whether it permits ICE access, requires warrants, or takes steps to protect workers and community members on its premises. That silence matters.

Under the Laken Riley Act, detention is triggered by arrest or accusation. That makes the locations where arrests occur far more consequential than before. When a corporation allows its property to be used as an enforcement staging ground, it effectively becomes part of the detention pipeline.

Protesters are not demanding that Home Depot change federal law. They are demanding that the company exercise the control it already has, by limiting access to its property, requiring judicial warrants, and refusing to allow its spaces to function as informal detention sites.

In a system where accusation now equals imprisonment, the difference between public and private space can be the difference between walking away and being jailed.

This is why we are protesting Home Depot.

Accountability comes at the ballot box

The Laken Riley Act passed the House with 263 Yes votes.

All 217 Republicans present voted Yes.

Republicans did not have enough votes to pass the bill alone. Only 6 Democratic votes were required. Instead, 46 Democrats voted Yes, while 156 Democrats voted No. That margin matters.

Every hospital stakeout. Every denial of medical care. Every coerced departure. Every pregnancy lost flows from that vote.

In 2026, those members of Congress will be on the ballot. Voting is not symbolic. It is how policy decisions acquire consequences.

In 2025, we saw what accusation was enough to do.In 2026, we decide whether it continues.

Below is the full list of House members who voted Yes.

Democrats Who Voted YES (46)

Cuellar, Henry [D-TX]

Davis, Donald G. [D-NC]

Gonzalez, Vicente [D-TX]

Golden, Jared [D-ME]Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ]

Henry, Steven [D-NV]

Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH]

Lee, Susie [D-NV]

Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL]

Pappas, Chris [D-NH]

Perez, Marie [D-WA]

Ryan, Pat [D-NY]

Schneider, Bradley S. [D-IL]

Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

Spanberger, Abigail [D-VA]

Stansbury, Melanie [D-NM]

Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI]

Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS]

Torres, Ritchie [D-NY]

Vasquez, Gabe [D-NM]

Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA]

Bera, Ami [D-CA]

Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

Cartwright, Matt [D-PA]

Costa, Jim [D-CA]

Craig, Angie [D-MN]

Crow, Jason [D-CO]

Dingell, Debbie [D-MI]

Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX]

Gluesenkamp Perez, Marie [D-WA]

Horsford, Steven [D-NV]

Jackson, Jonathan [D-IL]

Kildee, Dan [D-MI]

Kim, Andy [D-NJ]

Landsman, Greg [D-OH]

Luria, Elaine [D-VA]

McBath, Lucy [D-GA]

Morelle, Joseph D. [D-NY]

Norcross, Donald [D-NJ]

Peltola, Mary [D-AK]

Phillips, Dean [D-MN]

Ryan, Tim [D-OH]

Scholten, Hillary [D-MI]

Sewell, Terri [D-AL]

Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

Torres Small, Xochitl [D-NM]

(46 total)

Republicans Who Voted YES (217)

Every Republican present voted YES. Listing alphabetically:

Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]

Alford, Mark [R-MO]

Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]

Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV]

Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX]

Babin, Brian [R-TX]

Bacon, Don [R-NE]

Baird, James R. [R-IN]

Balderson, Troy [R-OH]

Barr, Andy [R-KY]

Bergman, Jack [R-MI]

Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]

Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]

Bishop, Dan [R-NC]

Boebert, Lauren [R-CO]

Bost, Mike [R-IL]

Brecheen, Josh [R-OK]

Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]

Buck, Ken [R-CO]

Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX]

Calvert, Ken [R-CA]

Cammack, Kat [R-FL]

Carey, Mike [R-OH]

Carter, Buddy [R-GA]

Carter, John R. [R-TX]

Cloud, Michael [R-TX]

Clyde, Andrew [R-GA]

Comer, James [R-KY]

Crane, Eli [R-AZ]

Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

Davidson, Warren [R-OH]

Donalds, Byron [R-FL]

Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]

Emmer, Tom [R-MN]

Estes, Ron [R-KS]

Ezell, Mike [R-MS]

Fallon, Pat [R-TX]

Feenstra, Randy [R-IA]

Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN]

Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI]

Fleischmann, Chuck [R-TN]

Flood, Mike [R-NE]

Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]

Franklin, Scott [R-FL]

Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]

Gallagher, Mike [R-WI]

Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY]

Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL]

Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]

Good, Bob [R-VA]

Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]

Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA]

Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA]

Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]

Guest, Michael [R-MS]

Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN]

Higgins, Clay [R-LA]

Hill, J. French [R-AR]

Hinson, Ashley [R-IA]

Hudson, Richard [R-NC]

Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]

Issa, Darrell [R-CA]

Jackson, Ronny [R-TX]

Johnson, Mike [R-LA]

Jordan, Jim [R-OH]

Joyce, John [R-PA]

Kustoff, David [R-TN]

LaHood, Darin [R-IL]

LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA]

Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]

Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ]

Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]

Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]

Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY]

Massie, Thomas [R-KY]

McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX]

McClain, Lisa [R-MI]

McCormick, Rich [R-GA]

McHenry, Patrick [R-NC]

McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA]

Miller, Mary E. [R-IL]

Mills, Cory [R-FL]

Moore, Barry [R-AL]

Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]

Norman, Ralph [R-SC]

Obernolte, Jay [R-CA]

Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]

Pence, Greg [R-IN]

Perry, Scott [R-PA]

Posey, Bill [R-FL]

Reschenthaler, Guy [R-PA]

Rodgers, Mike [R-AL]

Rose, John W. [R-TN]

Roy, Chip [R-TX]

Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL]

Scalise, Steve [R-LA]

Sessions, Pete [R-TX]

Smith, Adrian [R-NE]

Smith, Jason [R-MO]

Smucker, Lloyd [R-PA]

Stefanik, Elise [R-NY]

Steube, Greg [R-FL]

Tiffany, Tom [R-WI]

Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ]

Waltz, Michael [R-FL]

Weber, Randy [R-TX]

Williams, Roger [R-TX]

Wilson, Joe [R-SC]

Wittman, Rob [R-VA]

Zinke, Ryan [R-MT]

(217 total)

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.

Links to all our social media:

Facebook: indivisiblebocaraton.org/facebook

Instagram: indivisiblebocaraton.org/instagram

Tik Tok: indivisiblebocaraton.org/tiktok

YouTube: indivisiblebocaraton.org/youtube

Bluesky: indivisiblebocaraton.org/bluesky

Threads: indivisiblebocaraton.org/threads

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.

DonationsWe also are in need of any donations you can make towards Indivisible Boca Raton. Money is needed to be able to rent the Civic Center, serve refreshments, pay for postcards, office supplies, name tags, signs and other necessities to operate. This is a grassroots organization and any amount you can give would be extremely appreciated.

Click here or scan the QR code below. It will take you directly to our Act Blue Page. Thank you!