What legislative proposals or DOJ regulations have been advanced to limit CBP’s 100‑mile zone authority?
Executive summary
Efforts to constrain CBP’s de facto 100‑mile enforcement zone have surfaced in Congress and in advocacy reports: lawmakers have proposed narrowing the zone and imposing documentation and procedural limits on internal stops, while watchdog groups have urged statutory fixes and bans on certain surveillance practices [1] [2] [3]. The record shows concrete legislative proposals and advocacy campaigns but no clear, published Department of Justice regulation rescinding or formally curtailing the 100‑mile definition in the sources provided [4] [3].
1. Congressional bills to narrow the zone and require documentation
Members of Congress have introduced measures aimed at narrowing CBP’s reach and curbing internal checkpoints, including proposals to shrink the “reasonable distance” from 100 miles to smaller radii such as 25 miles and to impose stricter guidelines on searches and stops [1]. Separate legislative efforts have focused on procedural guardrails: for example, the DATA Act has been advanced in past Congresses to require documentation when stops exceed “a brief and limited inquiry,” an approach intended to deter routine interior stops that now occur under the 100‑mile rule [2].
2. Tech and surveillance restrictions floated to blunt interior enforcement powers
Policy advocates and oversight groups have urged Congress to pair geographic limits with restrictions on CBP’s use of modern surveillance and data tools; Project On Government Oversight recommended legislation like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act to bar purchases of personal data from brokers and the Facial Recognition Act to require warrants for facial recognition use and bar that technology for immigration enforcement—measures designed to stop CBP from bypassing Fourth Amendment protections through bulk data and biometrics [3].
3. DOJ regulations: limited evidence of rulemaking in the sources
The materials reviewed document statutory and regulatory origins of the 100‑mile construct—8 U.S.C. §1357(a) and implementing regulation 8 C.F.R. §287.1(a)—but do not show a Department of Justice or DHS rulemaking that has already narrowed or formally rescinded the 100‑mile regulatory definition [5] [4]. Advocacy groups and legal scholars argue the 100‑mile regulation was established without public debate and call for legislative clarification, which suggests the primary route for change so far has been Congress rather than DOJ regulation in the reporting cited [4] [5].
4. Oversight, litigation and advocacy as parallel levers for change
Civil‑liberties groups and local coalitions have sought to force reform through public education, litigation, and state or local policy responses; ACLU reports and local awareness campaigns highlight the zone’s reach and press for narrower statutory or regulatory definitions and anti‑profiling measures, framing the fix as legislative and oversight work as much as courtroom strategy [4] [1] [6]. Law‑review and watchdog reporting also call for stronger congressional oversight to rein in CBP and for statutory limits to prevent the agency becoming a national police force [7] [3].
5. Political and institutional pushback: national‑security framing and CBP’s defense
CBP and proponents emphasize the agency’s mission and national‑security rationale for broad interior authorities, with CBP officials characterizing the policies as vital to security; that framing complicates legislative reform because opponents argue limits could hinder border enforcement operations [1]. Meanwhile, advocates portray the 100‑mile rule as an “exception zone” that undermines ordinary Fourth Amendment protections and encourages congressional fixes [8] [9].
Conclusion — where the debate stands
The conversation has produced specific congressional proposals to narrow or document internal stops, and watchdogs have proposed statutes to curb surveillance and data‑driven circumvention of warrant rules, but the sources reviewed do not show a finalized DOJ regulation shortening the 100‑mile definition; instead, reform efforts currently run through bills, advocacy campaigns, oversight recommendations, and litigation pressure [1] [2] [3] [4]. Absent new rulemaking or enacted statute, the 100‑mile regulatory definition and its practical effects remain the central battleground between security advocates and civil‑liberties critics [5] [9].