HR-4682-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit solitary confinement in all federal prisons, immigration detention facilities, and facilities under contract with federal agencies. It would require all incarcerated people to have at least 14 hours per day of out-of-cell time with other people, including 7 hours of structured programming. Isolation would only be permitted in narrow emergency circumstances, with strict time limits, and certain groups — including people under 25, people over 55, people with disabilities, pregnant people, and LGBTQ+ individuals — could never be placed in emergency isolation. The bill would also create a community monitoring body with unannounced inspection authority, establish due process hearings before any alternative housing placement, and create a private right of action allowing incarcerated people to sue for violations.
Who benefits
The approximately 180,000 people currently in federal Bureau of Prisons custody, plus people held in federal immigration detention (ICE and CBP facilities). People in protected categories — those under 25, over 55, with disabilities, pregnant, or LGBTQ+ — who are currently disproportionately placed in isolation. People in immigration detention awaiting civil proceedings who are not serving criminal sentences. Families of incarcerated people who would gain contact visitation rights and communication access. Civil rights attorneys and advocacy organizations who would gain a private right of action and expanded access to facilities. Researchers and journalists who would gain unannounced inspection rights. Incarcerated people's mental and physical health outcomes, which studies link to reduced isolation.
Who is hurt
Federal Bureau of Prisons staff and administrators who would face significant operational constraints and potential liability. Correctional officers who argue isolation is a necessary safety tool, particularly for managing the most dangerous individuals. Federal contractors operating detention facilities who would face compliance costs and litigation exposure. Taxpayers who may bear costs of facility redesign, additional programming staff, healthcare personnel, and the new community monitoring body. Victims' advocates who argue that the most dangerous incarcerated individuals require stricter separation. State and local governments are not directly bound, but may face political pressure to adopt similar standards. Facilities housing people with acute psychiatric crises may face difficulty complying with out-of-cell requirements without adequate mental health infrastructure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that decades of medical and psychiatric research — including findings cited by the United Nations — document that isolation causes severe psychological harm including psychosis, self-mutilation, and suicide, even after short periods. They contend that over 120,000 people are held in solitary confinement on any given day in the U.S., and that the practice falls disproportionately on Black, Latino, and LGBTQ+ individuals, raising serious equal protection concerns. Supporters further argue that evidence from states and countries that have reduced or eliminated isolation shows no increase in facility violence, and that the bill's cost analyses indicate elimination would save taxpayer money by reducing expensive single-cell housing and associated litigation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating isolation as a disciplinary and safety tool would endanger correctional officers and other incarcerated people, particularly when managing individuals who have committed serious violence inside facilities. They contend that the bill's strict time limits on emergency lockdowns — as short as 4 hours — are operationally unworkable during genuine facility-wide crises such as riots or hostage situations, and that mandating congregate interaction for all individuals regardless of behavior removes a critical last-resort safety mechanism. Opponents further argue that the bill's private right of action, combined with broad liability exposure and the possibility of court-ordered facility closures, would expose the federal government to massive litigation costs and could result in judicial micromanagement of prison operations.
Constitutional context
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is the central constitutional provision at issue. Courts have long recognized that conditions of confinement — including prolonged isolation — can constitute cruel and unusual punishment, though the Supreme Court has not set a categorical rule against solitary confinement. The bill's due process hearing requirements also implicate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause for federal detainees. For immigration detainees held in civil (non-criminal) proceedings, the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process protections may provide an even stronger baseline than the Eighth Amendment.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ, DHS, HHS) would lose discretionary authority over housing classifications, while Congress would gain direct statutory control over confinement conditions; checks include the new independent community monitoring body, Inspector General oversight, a private right of action in federal courts, and mandatory quarterly public reporting by each federal agency.
Historical precedent
The First Step Act (2018) enacted federal sentencing and prison condition changes, including restrictions on placing juveniles and pregnant women in restrictive housing, representing the most recent directly analogous federal legislation on solitary confinement.