Requires Immediate Medical Care in Federal Custody

Summary#

The Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act of 2025 is an introduced bill, not law. It would amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code by adding a federal offense and requirements for federal agencies. Its stated goal is to require immediate medical attention for people in federal custody who show medical distress.

  • A covered official would commit an offense by negligently failing to obtain or provide immediate medical attention to a person in federal custody who shows medical distress in the official’s presence, if that failure causes unnecessary pain, injury, or death. Medical distress includes breathing difficulties.
  • Covered officials are federal law enforcement officers, Bureau of Prisons officers or employees, and U.S. Marshals Service officers or employees. The bill refers to an existing legal definition of “Federal law enforcement officer.”
  • A violation would be punishable by a fine under Title 18, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
  • The relevant Inspector General must investigate cases where a covered official fails to provide or obtain immediate care and the person suffers unnecessary pain, injury, or death. If the Inspector General concludes the failure was negligent, the Inspector General must refer the case to the Attorney General for possible prosecution.
  • Agencies employing covered officials must train each of them on obtaining or providing medical assistance. Their Inspectors General must also establish a confidential complaint process.
  • A state attorney general, or a state-designated official or entity, may bring a federal civil action for equitable or declaratory relief if there is reasonable cause to believe a state resident was harmed by a violation.

What it means for you#

  • People in federal custody: The bill would make certain negligent failures to obtain or provide immediate medical attention a federal offense, but only when the person showed distress in the official’s presence and suffered unnecessary pain, injury, or death as a result.
  • Federal law enforcement, Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Marshals Service personnel: Their agencies would have to train them. A covered official could face criminal penalties if the offense’s conditions are met.
  • Federal agencies and Inspectors General: Agencies would have to provide the training. Inspectors General would have to investigate qualifying incidents and set up confidential complaint processes.
  • State governments: A state attorney general or designated state entity could bring a civil action in federal court under the conditions in the bill; the bill does not require states to do so.
  • The general public: The bill does not directly change medical-care rules for people outside federal custody.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated costs is included in the supplied material.

  • Agencies would have to provide training, investigate qualifying incidents, and establish confidential complaint processes. The bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
  • A court could impose a fine, but the supplied material does not state its amount.
  • The bill does not specify a new appropriation, fee, or funding source.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current text of Title 18 or the referenced definition of “Federal law enforcement officer,” so existing duties and how this bill would interact with current law could not be verified.
  • The bill does not define “medical distress” beyond saying it includes breathing difficulties, or explain what counts as “immediate” attention or “unnecessary” pain or injury.
  • It does not set out how an Inspector General’s investigation or confidential complaint process must work, or set timelines for either.
  • It does not explain how much training agencies must provide or how compliance would be checked.
  • The bill is at the introduced stage; passage is uncertain, and the text does not state when it would take effect.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address cases where a person in federal custody suffers harm after an official fails to obtain or provide medical attention.
  • Requiring training could help covered officials recognize and respond to medical distress, though the bill does not guarantee a particular result.
  • Required Inspector General investigations and confidential complaints could provide ways to examine qualifying incidents.
  • Criminal penalties and possible state civil actions would add accountability measures when the bill’s conditions are met.

Case against#

  • The key terms “medical distress,” “immediate,” and “unnecessary” are not fully defined, which could leave uncertainty about how the requirements apply.
  • The offense requires a failure, negligence, and resulting harm. It would not cover every delay or failure to provide care under the wording supplied.
  • The bill requires training and investigations but provides no cost estimate, funding source, or detailed process for carrying them out.
  • The text does not explain how the new requirements would fit with existing federal rules or complaint systems.