HR-9817-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
What it does
This bill would cut Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding by 25% to states that don't restrict the use of restraints on pregnant incarcerated individuals in a manner similar to existing federal restrictions in 18 U.S.C. 4322. It would also direct the Bureau of Prisons to establish maternal health pilot programs in at least 6 federal facilities, create a grant program for states and localities to fund similar programs, and require GAO and agency reports on maternal health outcomes among incarcerated individuals, with $10 million per year authorized for each of two program areas from 2027-2031.
Who benefits
Pregnant and postpartum incarcerated individuals in federal, state, and local facilities; their newborns; community organizations and perinatal health workers who would receive grant funding or contracts; maternity care providers gaining training pathways; states that already comply with anti-shackling standards, which would receive reallocated grant funds from noncompliant states.
Who is hurt
States that do not currently restrict restraint use on pregnant inmates would lose 25% of their Byrne JAG funding, potentially affecting broader law enforcement operations funded by those grants; correctional facilities would bear compliance and training costs; federal and state budgets would bear the cost of new programs and reporting requirements; taxpayers fund the $20 million-per-year authorization plus administrative and oversight costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that shackling pregnant individuals during labor and delivery poses serious medical risks, including impeding emergency interventions, and that existing federal restrictions on shackling should be extended to state and local systems that receive federal justice funding. They contend that maternal mortality and morbidity are disproportionately high among incarcerated populations, particularly for Black women, and that targeted funding for prenatal and postpartum care, staff training, and diversion programs could measurably improve health outcomes and reduce preventable deaths.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that conditioning federal grant funding on states adopting specific restraint policies represents federal pressure on state correctional practices that states should set based on local security assessments and legitimate safety concerns during transport or medical episodes. They contend that the $20 million annual authorization and additional reporting and oversight mandates add new federal spending and administrative burdens without firm evidence the pilot programs and grants will produce better outcomes than existing state-level reforms already underway in many jurisdictions.
Constitutional context
Congress may attach conditions to federal grants to states under its Spending Clause power, as recognized in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), so long as conditions are unambiguous, related to program purposes, and not unduly coercive; the 25% funding reduction tied to restraint policies would likely be evaluated under this framework rather than as a direct mandate. The bill does not compel state action directly, avoiding anti-commandeering concerns under cases like Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Checks and balances
Congress would set funding conditions and authorize spending while the Department of Justice implements grant administration and program details, with courts available to review whether the funding condition crosses from persuasion into unconstitutional coercion.
Historical precedent
Several states have already enacted anti-shackling laws for pregnant inmates, and federal law under 18 U.S.C. 4322 already restricts restraint use in federal facilities, which this bill would extend as a funding condition to state and local systems.