Look, the Laken Riley Act wasn't just another piece of paper floating around D.C. It was personal. If you’ve been following the news, you know the name. Laken Riley was a 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia, just out for a run, when she was killed. The man charged—and later convicted—was an undocumented immigrant who’d already been picked up for shoplifting but was released. That’s the "why" behind this whole thing.
When the bill finally hit the floor, it wasn't a clean sweep. Not even close.
Basically, the bill (H.R. 7511 in the 118th Congress, then H.R. 29 and S. 5 in the 119th) requires the federal government to detain any undocumented person who is arrested for theft, shoplifting, or burglary. Simple, right? Well, for some, it was a "no-brainer" for public safety. For others, it was a "due process nightmare."
The Breakdown: Who Voted Against Laken Riley Bill?
It's 2026, and we can look back at the final tallies with a bit of distance. The bill actually took two tries to get through. The first time, in March 2024, it passed the House but hit a brick wall in the Senate. Then, in January 2025, with a new Congress and a shift in leadership, it sailed through and was signed by President Trump on January 29, 2025.
📖 Related: The Terrible Reality When a Student Shoots Himself on Field Trip and How Schools Must Respond
But let’s get into the weeds of who said "no."
In the most decisive House vote in January 2025, 156 Democrats voted against it. That’s a huge chunk of the caucus. While 46 Democrats crossed the aisle to join every single Republican in favor, the "nays" were loud and clear.
The Names You’ll Recognize
Some of the most prominent "no" votes came from the progressive wing, but also from some constitutional sticklers.
- Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): As the chair of the Progressive Caucus, she was one of the most vocal critics. She called the bill "unjust" and "unconstitutional," arguing it essentially created a "highway to mass deportation" based on mere accusations, not convictions.
- Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA): This one was interesting. She’s often seen as a moderate. She actually wrote a whole op-ed explaining her "no" vote. Her issue? She thought the bill was unconstitutional because it allowed states to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement—something the Supreme Court has been picky about.
- John Hickenlooper (D-CO): Over in the Senate, Hickenlooper was a "no" on the final unamended version. He wanted protections for DREAMers and more funding for the border, rather than just a detention mandate.
- The "Squad": Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib were all firm "no" votes. Their stance was largely centered on the idea that the bill would lead to racial profiling and the indefinite detention of people who hadn't even seen a judge yet.
Why They Voted No (It's Not Just Politics)
Honestly, it’s easy to say "it’s just partisanship," but the arguments against the bill were pretty specific. If you talk to the folks who voted against it, they usually point to three big things.
First, due process. This is the big one. The Laken Riley Act says the Department of Homeland Security must detain someone if they are arrested or charged with theft. Not convicted. Just arrested. Critics argued that if a person is wrongfully arrested, they could still end up in ICE custody indefinitely without a chance to prove their innocence in a criminal court first.
Second, the "Standing" issue. The bill gives state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government if they feel immigration laws aren't being enforced strictly enough. For many Democrats, this felt like a recipe for chaos. Imagine 50 different states suing the feds every time they don't like a specific parole decision. It would paralyze the system.
Lastly, the money. The Congressional Budget Office and various analysts pointed out that detaining an extra 100,000+ people isn't cheap. Some estimates put the cost at over $80 billion over three years. Critics argued that the bill didn't actually provide the funding for all those new detention beds, making it "impossible to execute."
What Really Happened with the Senate?
The Senate was where the real drama went down in early 2025. Unlike the House, which usually moves fast, the Senate chewed on this for weeks.
In the final vote on January 20, 2025, the Senate passed it 64–35.
Twelve Democrats joined the Republicans to get it over the finish line. These weren't just the usual suspects, either. You had people like Angie Craig (D-MN) supporting it, which actually caused a huge rift back in her home state. In fact, just this month in 2026, her vote has become a massive campaign issue in the Minnesota Senate race following a recent ICE-involved shooting.
The 35 who voted "no" in the Senate were almost entirely from the more liberal wing of the Democratic party. They felt the bill had been "weaponized" and that the Republican leadership refused to accept amendments that would have protected children or ensured faster court dates.
The Misconceptions People Still Have
There’s a lot of noise about this bill, and honestly, both sides tend to exaggerate.
One side says the bill "automatically deports" everyone. That’s not quite right. It mandates detention. The deportation process still has to play out, but the person stays in jail while it happens.
🔗 Read more: Columbus Ohio Dispatch Obituaries: Why They Still Matter and How to Find Them
The other side says anyone who voted against it "doesn't care about Laken Riley." That’s a heavy accusation. Most of the "no" voters argued that we already have laws on the books to deport violent criminals, and that this bill was "security theater" because it focused on shoplifting rather than fixing the broader visa and border systems.
How This is Playing Out Now in 2026
Since President Trump signed the bill into law last year, it’s been a mess in the courts. Just like Chrissy Houlahan predicted, several states and civil rights groups filed lawsuits immediately.
Currently, the provision allowing states to sue the federal government is sitting before a federal appeals court. Meanwhile, ICE has been struggling to find the space to hold everyone the law requires them to detain. We’re seeing a lot of "tent cities" or temporary holding facilities being built, which has only added more fuel to the political fire.
If you’re trying to keep track of who stood where, the "no" list is basically a map of the current Democratic resistance. It’s also a list of targets for the upcoming midterm elections.
What You Can Do Next
If you want to see exactly how your specific representative voted, you shouldn't just take a summary's word for it.
- Head over to Congress.gov and search for S. 5 or H.R. 29 from the 119th Congress.
- Click on the "Actions" tab and look for the "Roll Call" link.
- This will give you a name-by-name list of every person who voted "Yea," "Nay," or "Present."
Knowing the names is one thing, but understanding the "why" helps you see the bigger picture of where immigration law is headed in 2026. The debate isn't over; it's just moved from the House floor to the federal courtrooms.