The House Judiciary Committee presented their first report on an of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, H.R. 875, that would change how immigration law applies to people with DUI convictions. The proposed Act is also called the “Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act of 2025’’. The people in the title were killed in crashes, victims of aliens who were DUI.
Nearly 60 of the 73 page report reprints Chapter 2 of Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, 99% of the INA (my estimate) remains untouched. House rules require a full reprint of an affected section for change or amendment consideration. The Act, were it to pass in current form, creates new basis for deporting or refusing to admit aliens into the country based upon DUI convictions. Even admissions to facts supporting a DUI would make an alien inadmissible.
Democrats Desire Discretion in DUI Deportation
Firstly, the dissent regarding changing immigration law as applied to DUI arrests and convictions. Support versus opposition falls along party lines. Democrats oppose any change to the INA at all. But, if there is to be a change to how immigration law applies to DUIs, they want an amendment. Jamie Raskin (D), of Maryland’s 8th District, notes serious DUIs are already grounds for deportation or denial of entry into the United States. For example, this could be a DUI where a person is seriously injured or killed. Committee Report (CR) at p. 71.
Also, the dissent notes rarer cases where someone was convicted not due observed driving of a car while DUI, but was in “control” of a car intoxicated. For instance, this could be where someone is asleep in a parked car, engine running, keys in the ignition. (CR at p. 72) Seemingly harsh, the context may be there’s evidence the person had been driving DUI, but reached a parking spot before police arrived. I’ve prosecuted and now sometimes defend people where their first encounter with police occurs after definitively observed driving.
In an effort to mitigate against overly harsh results, Representative Pramila Jayapal (D) of Washington State’s 7th District offered an amendment. It would allow an adjudicator to consider a variety of mitigating factors pre-deportation. For example, the severity of the offense, were there injuries, or how long the individual has lived in the country. (CR at p. 73) While there was some interest among unnamed Republicans for some discretion, the Democrat amendment was defeated along party lines. No exceptions.
Rigid Republicans Require Rigorous Responsibility
Secondly, let’s summarize the proponent’s goals and reasons for changing immigration law as it applies to DUI convictions. The Act creates (1) “a new ground of inadmissibility for aliens convicted of, or admitting to, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” (CR at p. 10) Indeed, were an alien seeking admission into the country to “admit to committing acts that constitute the essential elements of any offense involving driving while intoxicated or impaired[,]” that would make them inadmissible. (CR at p. 11) Also, the amendment would (2) provide “a new ground of removability for aliens with DUI convictions.” (CR at 10)
Supporters of H.R. 875’s change to immigration law and its application to aliens with DUI arrests or convictions note that “[a]lcohol-impaired fatalities increased by 14 percent from 2020 to 2021 in the U.S. There were a total of 13,617 deaths. The number of alcohol-impaired fatalities remained steady in 2022, with 13,524 deaths. Drunk drivers were involved in 31 percent of all crash deaths in the country, with an average of 10,850 people killed every year in DUI-related crashes from 2012 through 2021. Criminal and illegal aliens are responsible for some of these preventable crashes and deaths.” (CR at p. 3)
Differential DUI Immigration Law Enforcement Breeds Distrust
“In October 2022, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it had arrested ‘175 illegal immigrants who had multiple DUI convictions.’ In FY 2018, ICE arrested aliens whose criminal histories included 80,730 DUI-related charges and convictions. In FY 2019, ICE nearly matched that number, arresting aliens who accounted for 74,523 DUI charges and convictions.” (CR at pp. 3-4) However, the committee report notes the number of arrests fell off precipitously with the Biden Administration.
While running for office, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden asserted ICE should not arrest aliens with DUI convictions because, ‘‘[y]ou only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed, and I don’t count drunk driving as a felony.’’ (CR at p. 6) Also, Biden said ICE officers should be fired if they arrest aliens who aren’t convicted felons. The disparity with how the two sides of the aisle view the issue was shown February 1, 2024 when 150 Democrats voted against the Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act during consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives. (CR at p. 6)
As to whether admissions of DUI supporting facts could and should be used to refuse entry or re-entry into the country, the committee report states “some far-left prosecutors—or even activist judges—may ensure that illegal aliens are never convicted of DUI-related crimes in the first place, which makes it even more important that aliens can be held responsible for their criminal actions if they admit to, but are not convicted of, driving under the influence.” (CR at p. 7)
How Will an Immigration Law Change Affect Lawyers and Clients with DUI Arrests or Convictions?
Passing as written, H.R. 875 makes things more contentious for defense attorneys and prosecutors. Same even for lesser charges where a DUI could’ve been charged. The amount of cases going to trial will increase. Diligent prosecutors can’t just reduce or dismiss DUIs. At least, not in all or even the majority of cases. Comparatively, defense lawyers will commit malpractice not fighting tooth and nail against DUI convictions for clients with visas or green cards. Also, as resident aliens may need to leave the U.S., and then return, even pleading to reduced charges where facts supporting a DUI are put on the plea record will be problematic.