House Judiciary Committee advances Kayla Hamilton Act to tighten screening for unaccompanied children

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday approved HR 4371, the Kayla Hamilton Act, moving the bill out of committee after debate and amendments. The bill would change placement and screening procedures for unaccompanied alien children (UACs) in federal custody, including expanded checks for criminal history and gang affiliation for UACs aged 12 and older.

Sponsor Representative Jeff Fry of South Carolina opened the markup by describing the bill as a response to the 2022 murder of Kayla Hamilton in Maryland. Fry said the legislation would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assess UACs for flight risk, criminal history and, for children 12 or older, gang affiliation, and would bar placements until required background checks—such as state sex-offender and FBI fingerprint checks—are returned. Fry said children who meet specified risk factors would be placed in secure facilities while immigration proceedings proceed.

Ranking Member Representative Jamie Raskin criticized parts of the measure, calling some provisions ‘‘overbroad’’ and expressing concern that the bill would permit body inspections for tattoos and give HHS broad discretion to detain children based on nonconviction records or ambiguous markers. Raskin and other Democrats repeatedly pressed the committee to explain definitions and safeguards in the bill that would limit detention based on tattoos or arrests without convictions.

Several amendments were offered during the markup. Fry offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that the committee adopted; among other changes, the substitute added a consultation process for placements, clarified sponsor eligibility, expanded required information HHS must provide before placement, and added severability and effective date clauses. A Democratic amendment that would have delayed the bill's effectiveness until the release of certain external files was offered and then tabled by recorded vote. Committee leaders also agreed to a technical clarifying amendment (accepted by voice) to ensure that "uncorrectable" violations and deliberate wrongdoing would not be shielded by provisions intended only for minor clerical errors.

Supporters of the measure pointed to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report cited in the markup that found ICE had difficulty tracking many UAC placements and that some released addresses were incomplete or non-existent. Supporters said the bill would reduce placement errors and help prevent placements with sponsors who have problematic backgrounds.

Opponents, including several Democrats on the committee, argued the bill risked detaining children who had not been proven dangerous, would chill placements with lawful relatives who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and could lead to longer institutional stays for children awaiting immigration proceedings. Opponents also sought explicit definitions of "gang tattoo" and other indicators, warning that reliance on tattoos or arrest records could misidentify children as gang-affiliated.

The committee adopted the substitute and other changes and reported the bill favorably to the full House. A final recorded vote on reporting the bill recorded 16 ayes and 13 noes (recorded vote included in the committee transcript). The committee record includes multiple roll-call and tabling votes on germane challenges and procedural appeals that were part of the extended debate.

The bill text as reported includes requirements for HHS to obtain specified background checks before placing a UAC with a sponsor and for additional screening for UACs 12 and older. It also contains language exempting certain technical requirements (Paperwork Reduction Act and Administrative Procedure Act) as described by the sponsor during markup.

Committee action moves the bill to the House floor for consideration; the House calendar and leaders will determine next steps and scheduling.

Ending: The committee debate highlighted sharply different views on immigration, child welfare and enforcement priorities. Supporters argued the bill would close placement gaps and reduce risks to communities; opponents warned the measure could expand detention and diminish family reunification for children who need care. The bill now goes to the House floor for further consideration.