US Proposes Expanded Biometric Collection for 1.12 Million Immigrants Annually

2025-11-03

The Weight of Witness by DALL-E 3

US Proposes Expanded Biometric Collection for 1.12 Million Immigrants Annually

Bread and Circus: The Complete Record of American Governance

Today’s newsletter covers official U.S. government happenings from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches yesterday, as well as key economic indicators. Below, you’ll find concise summaries of each document, with links to the original sources for further reading.

What Happened Yesterday:

🦅 Executive Branch: 1 documents (1 Proposed Rule)
🏛️ Legislative Branch: No activity
⚖️ Judicial Branch: 2 documents (2 Supreme Court Oral Arguments)
📊 Economic Indicators: No activity
Total words condensed: 132,612 into 846

The Big Picture

The U.S. government is moving to expand biometric data collection for nearly everyone involved in immigration processes, including children and U.S. citizens connected to applications. This proposed rule aims to improve identity verification and reduce fraud, human trafficking, and other crimes. If finalized, it will require about 1.12 million additional people annually to provide fingerprints, photos, and possibly DNA, with public comments open until January 2, 2026. This marks a significant tightening of immigration security measures, emphasizing stricter identity checks and limiting rescheduling of biometric appointments to just one without special cause.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing two important cases that could reshape legal interpretations affecting public safety and accountability. In one case, the Court is deciding whether time spent evading supervision after prison counts toward supervised release, which could extend or limit how long individuals remain under court rules. In another, the Court is considering if soldiers can sue contractors for safety failures on military bases abroad, balancing state law protections against military operational needs. These cases highlight ongoing tensions between individual rights, government authority, and military considerations, with outcomes likely to influence how laws apply in supervision and military contexts.

Pattern to Watch

There is a clear trend toward tightening government oversight and accountability in areas involving security and legal enforcement. The immigration biometric rule reflects a broader push for more rigorous identity verification to prevent fraud and crime, while the Supreme Court cases focus on clarifying the limits and responsibilities of supervision and contractor liability in sensitive contexts. This pattern suggests a policy environment increasingly focused on precise control and enforcement mechanisms, potentially leading to expanded government powers and legal complexities. Future signals of this trend continuing would include finalized immigration rules with strict biometric requirements and Supreme Court rulings that reinforce extended supervision periods or limit contractor lawsuits to protect military interests.

🦅 Executive Branch

Federal Register

The U.S. government is proposing a new rule that would require almost everyone involved in immigration applications—including children of any age, U.S. citizens, and lawful permanent residents—to provide biometric information like fingerprints, photos, and even DNA in some cases. This rule would apply to all people filing or connected to immigration requests, unless specifically excused, and aims to better confirm identities, prevent fraud, and protect public safety. People will be asked to attend appointments to submit these biometrics, and they can only reschedule once without a special reason. The government expects about 1.12 million more people each year will need to provide biometrics, starting after the rule is finalized, with public comments due by January 2, 2026. This change helps ensure that immigration benefits go to the right people and helps stop crimes like human trafficking and identity fraud. Read full document →

🏛️ Legislative Branch

No activity today.

⚖️ Judicial Branch

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

This case, called Rico v. United States, is about whether the time a person spends running away from supervision after leaving prison should count as part of their supervised release period. Ms. Rico’s lawyer said that the law does not allow the government to keep her under supervision after her official time ended, and that if she broke the rules while hiding, the court can punish her later by revoking her supervised release and starting over. The government argued that someone who runs away is not really being supervised, so their supervised release time should pause until they are caught, meaning the clock stops running while they are gone. The justices asked tough questions about what it means to be “supervised” and whether the law clearly says the clock should stop or keep running; for example, Justice Alito wondered why crimes after the official period should be treated differently, and Justice Sotomayor asked if this means the supervised release period could be unfairly extended. This case matters because it affects how long people must follow court rules after prison and how the justice system handles those who try to avoid supervision, impacting fairness and public safety. Read full document →
The Supreme Court heard a case called Hencely v. Fluor Corporation about whether a soldier hurt on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan can sue the contractor responsible for safety. The soldier’s side said the contractor broke rules and should be held responsible under state law because the military didn’t order the bad actions. The contractor and the government said that because war and military actions are special federal matters, state laws should not apply and suing contractors would hurt the military’s ability to fight wars. Some justices asked if the military’s control and contracts should decide when lawsuits are allowed, and others worried about how different states’ laws could cause confusion or harm military efforts. This case is important because it decides if soldiers can get help from courts when contractors make mistakes in war zones or if the military’s needs always come first, affecting safety and accountability. Read full document →

📊 Economic Indicators

No activity today.

Sources Covered Today

Federal Register: Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Supreme Court Oral Argument: Rico v. United States
Supreme Court Oral Argument: Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

All U.S. Government Activity Yesterday:

Presidential actions issued: 0
Regulations: 1
Bills presented to president: 0
Bills that became law: 0
Supreme Court opinions issued: 0
Supreme Court oral arguments: 2

This is your daily record of history unfolding — no spin, just facts. For 342,764,883 people in the United States, this was yesterday.

← Previous: No U.S. government activity this day