ICE Detention Bill Proposes $500,000 for Wrongfully Held US Citizens, Plus $100,000 for Extra Days
A proposed price on wrongful detention puts accountability for immigration enforcement at the centre of a Congressional debate
New Mexico Democrat Teresa Leger Fernández introduced an ICE detention bill in Washington on 15 October 2026 proposing damages for wrongfully held US citizens.
Successful claimants would receive $500,000 (€446,000 and £375,000), plus $100,000 (€89,200 and £75,000) for each additional day held.
The legislation follows a ProPublica investigation documenting immigration agents reportedly detaining 506 US citizens between January 2025 and September 2026. Those cases are not necessarily 506 unlawful detentions, and not everyone identified would automatically qualify for an award.
The Justice for Citizens Wrongfully Detained by ICE Act, designated H.R. 10826, has not become law. When introduced, it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, leaving the proposed payouts dependent on congressional approval and successful court claims.
In her 15 October announcement, Leger Fernández warned that 'ICE does not get to trample on your rights and walk away without consequence.'
What the ICE Detention Bill Would Pay Successful Claimants
The bill would permit US citizens to sue immigration officers, other officers enforcing immigration law, and the federal government in federal district court.
It covers arrests or detentions made without a warrant or without probable cause on or after 20 January 2025. It would also cover certain operations involving local officers under federal immigration agreements.
Under the official bill text, judges ruling in favour of eligible plaintiffs would have to award the specified damages. The additional $100,000 would apply for each day of detention after the day a person was initially arrested or detained. The legislation does not say those amounts accumulate in 24-hour increments.
A person merely questioned by immigration officers would not automatically qualify. A court would determine whether a particular encounter amounted to an arrest or detention and met the bill's conditions.
Claimants would have five years from the date their cause of action accrues to file. Courts could also award reasonable legal fees and costs, alongside appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief. The bill specifies that damages would be additional to sums recoverable under other laws.
Existing legal avenues already allow some lawsuits over improper immigration arrests. But immunity protections and procedural hurdles can make it difficult to pursue federal agents. The new measure seeks to create a clearer route to compensation.
Why the ICE Detention Bill Also Challenges Legal Immunity
Under this proposed law, officers could not invoke absolute or qualified immunity, protections that can otherwise limit civil liability. The United States would also waive sovereign immunity for those claims. Neither change would abolish those defences in unrelated cases.
According to ProPublica, a citizenship dispute ended with Brian Morales Garcia's deportation. He said officers in Texas refused to believe he was a citizen, detained him for four days and deported him to Mexico. He later returned using his birth certificate after filing a lawsuit.
Federal officials disputed his citizenship in earlier court filings, according to ProPublica. His account does not establish whether he would meet the bill's proposed test, but it illustrates the consequences of disputed citizenship during immigration enforcement.
The Department of Homeland Security denies that its agents are arresting US citizens. Asked about the legislation, it defended its operations as 'highly targeted,' ProPublica reported on 19 October. That position contrasts with the incidents documented in the investigation, although each case raises distinct factual and legal questions.
Supporters include the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Center for Law and Social Policy. LULAC president Roman Palomares argued that when the government mistreats a citizen, justice must be more than an apology. 'It must carry a price,' he said.
The proposal would also rescind unobligated funds made available through a specified immigration enforcement provision of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It would not claw back money already spent.
New Jersey Democrat Bonnie Watson Coleman joined as the original co-sponsor. As of 20 October, the official record listed referral to the House Judiciary Committee on 15 October as the bill's latest action, with no House vote recorded.
© Copyright IBTimes 2026. All rights reserved.