Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act

Enumerated powers · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill creates new federal criminal offenses for fleeing from law enforcement within 100 miles of the U.S. border. While the federal government has broad authority over immigration and border security under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (Naturalization) and the plenary power doctrine, this bill criminalizes conduct that is not inherently tied to immigration or border crossing. Fleeing from law enforcement is a traditional state police power matter. The 100-mile zone is arbitrary and not tied to any enumerated federal power such as regulating commerce or defending the nation. The Supreme Court has held that the federal government's power over immigration does not extend to creating general criminal laws within a border zone (see *United States v. Lopez*, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). The bill's connection to border security is too attenuated to justify federal criminal jurisdiction over conduct that could occur entirely within a state's interior.

Bill of Rights · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill violates the Fourth Amendment by creating a de facto 'border zone' where fleeing from law enforcement triggers federal criminal penalties. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has recognized a 'border search exception' only at actual border crossings (see *United States v. Flores-Montano*, 541 U.S. 149 (2004)). Extending this exception to a 100-mile zone without individualized suspicion is unreasonable. Additionally, the bill's mandatory minimum sentences for death or serious bodily injury may violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment if they are grossly disproportionate to the offense (see *Graham v. Florida*, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)). The bill also implicates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by imposing immigration penalties without a full hearing or judicial determination of guilt.

Individual liberty · raises concerns · severity: critical

The bill restricts an individual's freedom to operate a motor vehicle without being subject to federal criminal prosecution for fleeing from law enforcement within a 100-mile zone. While fleeing from law enforcement is not a protected right, the government must justify the restriction with a compelling interest. Here, the government's interest in border security is legitimate, but the bill's broad geographic scope and lack of nexus to actual border crossing means it restricts the liberty of individuals who may be nowhere near the border. The burden is on the government to show that this restriction is necessary and narrowly tailored, which it fails to do. The bill also strips non-U.S. nationals of their right to seek asylum, a fundamental protection under U.S. law and international treaties, without due process.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill fails the decentralization test on multiple counts. (1) An individual or family cannot handle fleeing from law enforcement on their own; this is a matter for government. (2) A local community or county could handle fleeing from law enforcement without state involvement, as this is a routine local policing matter. (3) A state could handle this without federal involvement, as states have their own laws against fleeing from law enforcement. (4) The bill consolidates decision-making at the federal level for conduct that is traditionally handled by states and localities, violating the Tenth Amendment. The bill directly usurps state police powers by creating a federal crime for conduct that is already criminal under state law, without any showing that states are unable to handle it.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: critical

The bill violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by making non-U.S. nationals inadmissible, deportable, and ineligible for immigration relief (including asylum) upon conviction or admission of the offense. This imposes a severe penalty (deportation, loss of asylum eligibility) without a full and fair hearing on the underlying conduct. The bill also creates a mandatory minimum prison term for death or serious bodily injury, which may violate substantive due process by imposing punishment without consideration of individual circumstances or intent. Additionally, the bill's 100-mile zone may be so vague as to fail the void-for-vagueness doctrine, as individuals may not know when they are within the zone or that fleeing from a local officer could trigger federal penalties.