Back to Bills

Ban DHS Use of Full-Body Restraints

Full Title:
Full-Body Restraint Prohibition Act

Summary#

This bill would bar the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from buying or using certain kinds of restraints called “full-body restraints.” The rule applies to four‑point and five‑point restraints that immobilize a person. The bill also requires DHS to report regularly on compliance and to remove employees who use these restraints or who lie to Congress or DHS leaders about their use.

  • Main change: DHS may not obligate or spend federal money to acquire, or utilize, four‑point or five‑point full‑body restraints that immobilize an individual.
  • Reporting: DHS must send a report within 90 days of enactment and then every quarter with compliance information and an inventory of any such restraints it still has.
  • Detail in reports: If a prohibited restraint is used, DHS must report identifying and demographic information about the person restrained, the reason and duration, any injuries, the officer responsible, location, language access provided, and whether medical staff were present and qualified.
  • Employee discipline: DHS must remove from federal service any officer or employee who uses a prohibited restraint or who deceives Congress or departmental leadership about such use.
  • Contracts entered into before enactment are excluded: The ban on acquisition does not apply to contracts or similar agreements made before the law starts.

What it means for you#

  • DHS officers and employees: They would be banned from using four‑point and five‑point full‑body restraints. Employees who violate the ban or who deceive Congress or leadership about such use face mandatory removal from federal service under DHS discipline rules.
  • People detained, transported, or otherwise in DHS custody: DHS could no longer use the defined full‑body restraints on them. If such restraints are used despite the ban, detailed information about the incident must be reported to Congress and certain Senate committees.
  • DHS components (for example, immigration or border units): These parts of the Department must track any existing inventory of these restraints and report quarterly on compliance and any violations.
  • Companies with DHS contracts: Contracts signed before the law begins are not covered by the new prohibition; new purchases after enactment would be prohibited.
  • Other law enforcement agencies or contractors: The bill only restricts the Secretary of Homeland Security and DHS funds and use. It does not change rules for state, local, or other federal agencies unless they receive DHS funding and the restriction applies to that funding.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill creates a new quarterly reporting requirement. Preparing and submitting those reports could raise administrative costs for DHS.
  • The Department may incur costs to inventory, store, transfer, or dispose of existing full‑body restraints it holds.
  • There could be training costs to change use-of-force and transport practices and to inform staff about the prohibition and reporting rules.
  • If the Department must replace a restraint with alternative equipment or procedures, there may be equipment or operational costs.
  • The bill does not provide a fiscal estimate or a detailed budget for these items in the text provided.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to stop DHS from using four‑point and five‑point restraints that immobilize people, likely to reduce harms associated with such devices.
  • The quarterly reporting and required inventory aim to increase transparency about whether and how such restraints are held or used.
  • The mandatory removal rule for employees who violate the ban or who deceive Congress or DHS leadership is designed to strengthen accountability.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill may limit operational options for DHS personnel during certain high‑risk or emergency situations; the text does not state exceptions for emergencies.
  • The definition covers only four‑point and five‑point restraints. It is unclear whether similar restraint methods could be used instead, and the bill does not address those alternatives.
  • The mandatory removal requirement for employees who violate the prohibition may raise questions about how this interacts with federal employee due‑process protections and existing disciplinary procedures.
  • The bill leaves in place contracts entered into before enactment, which could allow continued acquisition or use for some time; it is unclear how long existing supplies would remain in use.
  • The reporting requirement may increase administrative burden and costs for DHS, and the bill provides no funding to cover those expenses.