The Laken Riley Act: A New Era of State Involvement in Federal Immigration Policy
Kris Quadros-Ragar • February 6, 2025
On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law, significantly altering how immigration policies are enforced in the United States. This legislation grants State attorneys general and other authorized officials unprecedented authority to interpret and implement federal immigration policies. It also empowers them to take legal action against the federal government if they believe federal immigration enforcement negatively impacts their state. With this new authority, states now play a direct role in shaping immigration outcomes—a responsibility traditionally held by the federal government.
One of the most immediate effects of the Laken Riley Act is that it allows states to seek injunctive relief to block the issuance of visas to nationals of countries that refuse or unreasonably delay the acceptance of their citizens who have been ordered removed from the United States. This means that if a country does not cooperate with U.S. deportation efforts, its nationals—regardless of their legal status—could face significant difficulties obtaining or renewing visas. As a result, foreign nationals from these countries may encounter increased uncertainty when traveling internationally or securing work authorization in the U.S.
Beyond visa processing, the law introduces a new level of unpredictability into the immigration system. By allowing state attorneys general to intervene in federal procedures, and immigration policies that may now vary based on state-level decisions. In the coming months, it remains to be seen how individual states will wield this power—whether they will actively seek to block visa issuance or push for broader immigration enforcement measures.
For foreign nationals and employers, staying informed about which countries are deemed “uncooperative” is now more important than ever. Those needing visa renewals or planning international travel should prepare for potential delays and seek professional guidance to navigate these uncertainties.
The Laken Riley Act also mandates federal immigration authorities to detain and deport individuals without legal status who are charged with certain offenses, including minor theft or shoplifting, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. This provision underscores a stricter approach to immigration enforcement, affecting individuals accused of both minor and serious offenses.
With immigration policies now subject to a new layer of state involvement, it is more important than ever to stay informed and prepared for potential challenges. If you have concerns about how the Laken Riley Act may affect your immigration status or business, contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm for strategic counsel tailored to your needs.
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
This Facebook widget is no longer supported.
Kris Quadros-Ragar
Similar Posts
On January 14, 2026, the Trump administration announced a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries . The administration states that this “visa freeze” is intended to review security protocols, “reduce risks,” and control immigration flows. However, the immediate reality is that this change in policy has temporarily suspended visa processing and restricted travel for applicants from numerous countries across the globe. While the legal landscape surrounding these suspensions is highly fluid and subject to change, it is important to consider how this “visa freeze” might impact your current status or immigration plans. The scope of the restrictions varies drastically depending on your country of origin and specific visa category. Most notably, a nationality-based travel ban restricts visa issuance for 19 countries : Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Beyond this targeted ban, a broader freeze affects applicants from a designated list of up to 75 countries, leading to indefinite delays for many visa petitions. However, it is important to note that immigrant visa applications first need to be processed through USCIS, which has not paused processing applications from the 75 countries. Thus, it is important to contact an attorney to understand at what point in the process this visa freeze may affect your case. While Brazil is included in the list of 75 countries, at the time of this publication, the freeze does not include non-immigrant visas for Brazil . Non-immigrant visas are granted to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for specific purposes, such as tourism, studying, or temporary work. This means that Brazilian applicants can still safely pursue non-immigrant employment options, such as O visas for individuals with extraordinary ability or P visas for internationally recognized athletes, without being subjected to the current travel bans or suspensions. This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are many changes and uncertainties, so please consult with a qualified attorney at Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. to understand how these evolving policies might affect your specific case
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for multiple countries, sparking a wave of last-minute litigation and creating significant uncertainty for beneficiaries. This shift is having a profound impact on those who rely on TPS for lawful presence and work authorization in the United States. Across the country, federal courts have intervened to pause or block scheduled TPS terminations for several countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Syria. In response to these court orders, USCIS has updated its webpages to indicate that TPS status and related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are extended for these populations. However, USCIS is intentionally not providing specific new end dates for EAD validity while the litigation remains in flux. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prominently noted that it "vehemently disagrees" with these court orders and is actively working with the Department of Justice on next steps. This legal landscape remains highly unpredictable and varies drastically depending on the country of origin. For example, on February 9, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay allowing the government to proceed with the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal while the underlying legal challenges continue. Because of this ruling, the automatic extension of work authorization for these individuals has ended, and employers are now required to reverify the work authorization of affected employees, who must present alternative valid documentation to continue their employment. These rapid changes and the lack of clear end dates are causing complications beyond the workplace. Because driver's licenses often track the length of an individual's authorized stay, many DMVs are currently declining to issue or renew driver's licenses for impacted TPS populations. For employers, managing internal communications, avoiding onboarding errors, and navigating Form I-9 compliance has become increasingly complex. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared and proactive in monitoring these rapid changes. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, and supported. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Haiti, and Cameroon. These longstanding protections are set to expire, putting many individuals at risk of deportation.
When applying for a green card or seeking admission into the United States, one of the legal hurdles many applicants may face is the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This test evaluates whether someone is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support. But what exactly does that mean—and what types of public benefits can trigger this issue? In this article, we’ll break down what “public charge” really means, who is affected, what types of public benefits are considered, and what immigrants should be mindful of when making decisions about public programs like Medi-Cal and Medicaid. What Is the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility? The public charge rule applies to individuals applying for a visa, green card (adjustment of status), or entry into the U.S., unless they fall into an exempt category. Under this rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must determine whether the applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. This typically refers to receiving: Public cash assistance for income maintenance (such as SSI or TANF), or Long-term institutional care at government expense. This determination is based on the "totality of circumstances," including age, health, financial resources, education, skills, and whether a sponsor has submitted a valid Affidavit of Support. Who Is Exempt from the Public Charge Rule? Many categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. These include: Asylees and refugees Special immigrant juveniles Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners T and U visa applicants Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants Importantly, even if someone later adjusts status through a different pathway that is subject to public charge, any benefits they received while in an exempt category will not be held against them. What Public Benefits Are Not Considered in the Public Charge Test? It is a common and harmful myth that using any public benefit will jeopardize your immigration status. In fact, most non-cash benefits do not count against you in a public charge determination. According to USCIS and DHS guidance, the following types of assistance (current as of July 1, 2025) are not considered: Health-Related Benefits Medi-Cal/Medicaid, except for long-term institutional care Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Health insurance through the ACA Marketplace, including subsidies COVID-19 testing, vaccines, and treatment Community health services, crisis counseling, and short-term shelters Food and Nutrition SNAP (Food Stamps) WIC School meal programs Food banks and emergency food assistance Housing and Energy Emergency shelter Rental assistance (e.g., McKinney-Vento programs) Energy assistance (e.g., LIHEAP) Education and Childcare Public schooling Head Start Childcare subsidies (e.g., CCDF) Educational grants and scholarships Federal Cash and Tax Benefits Earned income tax credit (EITC) Child Tax Credit (CTC) Stimulus checks Unemployment insurance Social Security and veteran’s benefits Disaster and pandemic-related cash aid In short, just because a benefit is public or government-funded doesn’t automatically make it count against you. A Word of Caution About Medi-Cal and Medicaid, in Particular As of today (07/01/2025), standard use of Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) or Medicaid for most health-related services is not considered in a public charge determination. This includes preventative care, emergency services, pregnancy-related services, and short-term care. However, if Medicaid is used for long-term institutionalization, such as in a nursing home or psychiatric facility, that does count under the public charge test. Despite current guidance, we are seeing political shifts and changes in tone from the current administration that suggest public charge policies may become more restrictive in the future. This includes renewed interest in expanding the types of public benefits that may be considered, particularly around medical assistance. For that reason, we generally recommend that individuals who are applying for adjustment of status, or who may be subject to the public charge ground in the future, avoid enrolling in Medi-Cal or Medicaid at this time, unless absolutely necessary. Final Thoughts Immigration law is complex, and the rules surrounding public charge can feel confusing or even frightening. But it’s important to understand that using most public benefits—especially for food, education, and healthcare—will not automatically jeopardize your green card or visa application. Still, because policy can change quickly, we urge individuals to consult with an immigration attorney before applying for any public assistance—especially healthcare programs like Medi-Cal or Medicaid. If you have questions or concerns about how public benefits might impact your immigration case, our office is here to help. We are committed to providing up-to-date, personalized guidance to keep your immigration journey on track. Disclaimer The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case is unique, and the application of the public charge rule may vary depending on your specific situation. If you believe this topic may apply to you or you need individualized legal guidance, we encourage you to contact one of our highly-qualified legal professionals for a consultation and assistance tailored to your circumstances. Resources: USCIS Public Charge Resources ILRC Medi-Cal and Public Charge Alert (2024) California Medi-Cal Immigrant Eligibility FAQ
On January 14, 2026, the Trump administration announced a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries . The administration states that this “visa freeze” is intended to review security protocols, “reduce risks,” and control immigration flows. However, the immediate reality is that this change in policy has temporarily suspended visa processing and restricted travel for applicants from numerous countries across the globe. While the legal landscape surrounding these suspensions is highly fluid and subject to change, it is important to consider how this “visa freeze” might impact your current status or immigration plans. The scope of the restrictions varies drastically depending on your country of origin and specific visa category. Most notably, a nationality-based travel ban restricts visa issuance for 19 countries : Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Beyond this targeted ban, a broader freeze affects applicants from a designated list of up to 75 countries, leading to indefinite delays for many visa petitions. However, it is important to note that immigrant visa applications first need to be processed through USCIS, which has not paused processing applications from the 75 countries. Thus, it is important to contact an attorney to understand at what point in the process this visa freeze may affect your case. While Brazil is included in the list of 75 countries, at the time of this publication, the freeze does not include non-immigrant visas for Brazil . Non-immigrant visas are granted to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for specific purposes, such as tourism, studying, or temporary work. This means that Brazilian applicants can still safely pursue non-immigrant employment options, such as O visas for individuals with extraordinary ability or P visas for internationally recognized athletes, without being subjected to the current travel bans or suspensions. This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are many changes and uncertainties, so please consult with a qualified attorney at Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. to understand how these evolving policies might affect your specific case
Recent data in 2026 shows a sharp increase in Requests for Evidence across employment-based visa categories such as EB-1, EB-2 NIW, O, and H-1B. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) are no longer reserved for borderline cases; even robust petitions for high-level talent are facing unprecedented scrutiny. The expansion of the USCIS Vetting Center means automated tools are cross-referencing every petition, triggering RFEs for even the smallest inconsistencies. For EB-2 NIW petitions, adjudicators are increasingly questioning the "National Importance" of a candidate’s endeavor. Even for those with impressive credentials, USCIS now demands evidence of how their work specifically benefits the U.S. on a prospective basis. For O-1A and O-1B visas, officers are applying narrower interpretations of "distinction" and "extraordinary ability," often mischaracterizing evidence already present in the record. Additionally, a troubling 2026 trend is the correlation between Premium Processing and RFEs . For discretionary categories like EB-1A and EB-2 NIW, Premium Processing has increasingly become a "fast track" to a poorly reasoned RFE. Reports indicate that adjudicators, pressured by 15-business-day timelines, may be relying on AI-assisted vetting tools that trigger automated RFEs with general and boilerplate language, rather than a thorough review and analysis of supporting documents and evidence filed. With USCIS employing more rigorous AI-driven vetting and a narrower interpretation of visa criteria, the margin for error has disappeared . As such, ensure you consult with an experienced immigration attorney before filing a petition. ' If you have any questions, please schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, and we will be more than happy to assist you.
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for multiple countries, sparking a wave of last-minute litigation and creating significant uncertainty for beneficiaries. This shift is having a profound impact on those who rely on TPS for lawful presence and work authorization in the United States. Across the country, federal courts have intervened to pause or block scheduled TPS terminations for several countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Syria. In response to these court orders, USCIS has updated its webpages to indicate that TPS status and related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are extended for these populations. However, USCIS is intentionally not providing specific new end dates for EAD validity while the litigation remains in flux. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prominently noted that it "vehemently disagrees" with these court orders and is actively working with the Department of Justice on next steps. This legal landscape remains highly unpredictable and varies drastically depending on the country of origin. For example, on February 9, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay allowing the government to proceed with the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal while the underlying legal challenges continue. Because of this ruling, the automatic extension of work authorization for these individuals has ended, and employers are now required to reverify the work authorization of affected employees, who must present alternative valid documentation to continue their employment. These rapid changes and the lack of clear end dates are causing complications beyond the workplace. Because driver's licenses often track the length of an individual's authorized stay, many DMVs are currently declining to issue or renew driver's licenses for impacted TPS populations. For employers, managing internal communications, avoiding onboarding errors, and navigating Form I-9 compliance has become increasingly complex. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared and proactive in monitoring these rapid changes. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, and supported. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
