Solitary confinement limits in federal facilities

Full Title:
End Solitary Confinement Act

Summary#

This bill would sharply limit and mostly end the use of solitary confinement (being kept in a cell without meaningful group interaction) in federal custody and in facilities that contract with federal agencies. It sets minimum out-of-cell time and programming, strict time limits and review rules for short emergency separations, new health and due-process rules, quarterly public reporting, a community monitoring body, and a private right to sue for violations. The stated goal is to stop the harms the bill links to solitary confinement and to replace it with out-of-cell, therapeutic, and rehabilitative approaches.

  • Main change: Federal agencies and facilities contracting with them may not place people in solitary except in narrowly defined, time-limited situations (night count/sleep, brief counts/business, or tightly limited emergency or lockdown uses).
  • Minimum standards: People must have at least 14 hours per day out of cell in shared space, including at least 7 hours of structured group programming and at least 1 hour of group recreation.
  • Protections: Certain groups (people 25 or younger, 55 or older, people with disabilities, anyone with a diagnosed mental health need in the last 2 years, pregnant/postpartum people, and people who are or are perceived to be LGBTQIA+) cannot be involuntarily confined in emergency separations.
  • Oversight, reporting, and accountability: Agencies must post quarterly statistics; an independent community monitoring body with unannounced access is created; the Inspector General must convene an advisory body and report annually.
  • Enforcement and remedies: Individuals harmed by violations may sue for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees. States that receive certain federal justice grants must certify compliance or face at least a 10% cut in those grants.
  • Timing and funding: The law would start no later than 60 days after enactment and requires Congress to appropriate funds to implement it; the bill also prohibits using its appropriations for new carceral construction or certain procurements.

What it means for you#

  • People incarcerated in federal facilities (and in facilities contracting with federal agencies):

    • Most placements in single cells without group contact would be banned.
    • You would be legally entitled to at least 14 hours out of cell per day in shared space, with access to programs, recreation, meals, visits, and library/law library.
    • If separated for emergency reasons, the time and conditions of separation would be tightly limited and require frequent health checks and hourly de-escalation attempts.
    • Certain groups may not be placed involuntarily in emergency confinement at all (see Summary).
    • You could bring a civil lawsuit for violations, seeking injunctions, damages, and attorney’s fees.

  • Federal agency staff and facility administrators:

    • Facilities must change daily schedules, programming, and housing practices to meet minimum out-of-cell and programming hours.
    • Use of restraints and special administrative measures is sharply restricted; more frequent health assessments and documentation will be required.
    • Facilities must allow a community monitoring body unannounced visits, confidential communications with people in custody, and rapid delivery of records when requested.

  • States and local governments receiving Byrne JAG grants:

    • To avoid a reduction of at least 10% in those federal grants, a state or local entity must certify it has laws, policies, and programs substantially complying with the federal standards or implement them within 180 days of enactment.

  • Families, advocates, and the public:

    • Agencies must publish quarterly, disaggregated data on self-harm, suicide attempts, placements in confinement, and lengths of confinement.
    • A community monitoring body and expanded Inspector General reporting are intended to increase outside oversight and public recommendations.

  • Private contractors and non-federal facilities under contract:

    • The prohibition and standards apply to any facility that contracts with listed federal agencies for custody or services. Contractors must comply with the same limits and reporting requirements.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill requires Congress to appropriate funds for implementation but provides no cost estimate in the text.
  • The bill’s findings state that eliminating solitary would save taxpayers “billions,” but the bill does not provide a fiscal note or detailed savings estimate.
  • The law would create new administrative tasks: more programming, health screenings, hourly checks during emergencies, expanded reporting, a community monitoring body, and Inspector General activities — all of which could require additional staff, training, facility reorganization, and IT/reporting systems.
  • The bill also forbids using its appropriations for construction of detention facilities and for certain procurements; that could shift where existing funds may be used but the text does not quantify budget effects.

Proponents' View#

The bill text itself presents the main arguments for the change. A possible set of reasons, based on that text, is:

  • The bill appears intended to stop severe physical and psychological harm the text attributes to solitary confinement, calling it inhumane and dangerous.
  • It could be seen as promoting safer outcomes by replacing isolation with out-of-cell programming, social interaction, and therapeutic services.
  • Supporters may argue it increases transparency and accountability by requiring public reporting, outside monitoring, and stronger due process for placements.
  • The bill claims eliminating solitary is expensive now and that ending it would save taxpayers large sums.
  • It seeks to protect groups the bill says are disproportionately affected (racial minorities, people with mental health needs, gender-diverse people, and young people).

Opponents' View#

The bill text does not include formal opposition statements. Based only on the bill’s design, reasonable concerns or trade-offs include:

  • Operational and safety questions: Facilities will need to change staffing, programming, and physical layouts to meet 14 hours out-of-cell and the programming requirement; it is not explicit how all security or safety challenges will be managed under the new limits.
  • Implementation costs and timing: The bill requires appropriations but gives no cost estimate; agencies must comply within tight timeframes (rules start no later than 60 days), which may be difficult without clear funding.
  • Legal and litigation exposure: The private right of action and the possibility of facility closure for systemic noncompliance could produce litigation and court-ordered remedies that agencies must handle.
  • Ambiguities: Terms used in operational rules—such as “meaningful group interaction,” “alternative unit,” and what qualifies as “structured programming”—may require interpretation; the bill relies heavily on agency practice and later regulations or guidance.
  • Emergency and lockdown exceptions: The bill permits short emergency separations and limited lockdowns but leaves room for agencies to interpret necessity; oversight mechanisms require prompt records and reviews but depend on timely agency cooperation.
  • Effect on state funds: The withholding of federal Byrne JAG funds for noncompliant states could reduce resources for local law enforcement or public safety programs unless states change laws and policies promptly; the bill exempts certain community programs from cuts.