HR-3603-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
What it does
The bill would make it a federal crime, punishable by a fine, up to 1 year in prison, or both, for a federal law enforcement officer, Bureau of Prisons employee, or U.S. Marshals Service employee to negligently fail to obtain or provide immediate medical attention to a person in federal custody who shows medical distress in that official's presence, if the person suffers unnecessary pain, injury, or death as a result. It would require the relevant Inspector General to investigate such incidents, refer cases it finds negligent to the Attorney General for prosecution, and set up a confidential complaint process. State attorneys general (or designated state entities) may sue in federal court for equitable and declaratory relief, and agency heads would have to provide training on responding to medical distress.
Who benefits
People held in federal custody, including Bureau of Prisons inmates, people in U.S. Marshals custody, and people detained by federal agents, who may gain a legal incentive for officials to respond quickly to breathing problems and other distress. Families of people who suffer harm in custody, who would gain an investigation path, a confidential complaint channel, and possible state-led civil action. Inspectors General and state attorneys general, who would gain explicit authority in these cases. Federal officials who receive new training and clearer expectations.
Who is hurt
Federal law enforcement officers, Bureau of Prisons staff, and Marshals Service employees, who would face criminal liability under a negligence standard for split-second judgments, with up to 1 year in prison. Federal agencies, which would bear training costs and added Inspector General investigative workload. Officials who must judge whether a person is truly in distress, who may face second-guessing after the fact. Federal prosecutors, who would take on additional referrals. Agencies may also face added litigation from state civil actions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that people in custody cannot seek care themselves, so the government must answer for failures to act on visible distress such as breathing trouble. They contend that a narrow offense, limited to negligence that causes unnecessary harm, plus mandatory Inspector General review and training, creates accountability where current civil remedies and agency discipline have often fallen short, as in the death of Andrew Kearse.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that criminal liability for ordinary negligence is unusually low for a federal offense and could expose officers and corrections staff to prosecution for hard, fast judgment calls in understaffed facilities. They contend that existing tools, including civil suits, agency discipline, and Eighth Amendment claims, already address serious indifference, and that the mandatory referral requirement and state lawsuits add burdens and could chill decisive action.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Article I power to regulate federal officers and facilities and parallels Eighth Amendment and Fifth Amendment duties to provide medical care to people in custody, as in Estelle v. Gamble (1976), which requires deliberate indifference, a higher standard than the negligence standard used here. Allowing state attorneys general to sue federal officials in federal court may raise sovereign immunity and standing questions, and Congress's authority to create such suits is uncertain.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts oversight power toward Inspectors General and Congress by mandating investigations and prosecution referrals, and toward states through civil suits against federal officials, while the Attorney General keeps prosecutorial discretion and courts decide liability and standing.
Historical precedent
Existing federal law, such as 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), already criminalizes willful denial of constitutional rights, including medical care, but it requires willfulness rather than negligence.