Families Deserve to Know Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 13, 2026
Bottom line
The Families Deserve to Know Act establishes mandatory notification protocols and accountability measures for ICE and its contractors regarding the health and death of individuals in custody.
What it actually does
This bill mandates U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to establish clear policies and procedures for notifying next-of-kin or emergency contacts in cases of death, serious illness, serious injury, or hospitalization of individuals in ICE custody. It specifies timeframes for notification, required information, and methods for collecting and updating emergency contact details. The bill also imposes civil penalties on contractors for non-compliance and creates a civil action mechanism for aggrieved parties.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical lack of transparency and accountability within ICE detention facilities, ensuring that families are promptly and compassionately informed about the well-being or death of their loved ones. They contend that current practices often leave families in the dark, causing immense distress, and that this legislation provides necessary humanitarian protections and legal recourse.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might argue that the bill imposes overly prescriptive and potentially burdensome administrative requirements on ICE and its contractors, which could divert resources from other critical operations. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for increased litigation and the financial implications of civil penalties and damages, especially given the 'no additional funds' clause, which might strain existing budgets.
The bill is moderately detailed but structured logically, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)-(d)
Mandatory Emergency Contact Notification Policies
This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement policies within 180 days for ICE to notify next-of-kin or emergency contacts in cases of death, serious illness, or serious injury. It outlines specific information to be collected from individuals upon taking custody, including preferred contacts, faith leader involvement, and medical proxy details. It also mandates regular opportunities for individuals to update this information and requires language access for all disclosures.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these policies are essential for human dignity and transparency, ensuring that families are not left uninformed during critical moments. They contend that clear, standardized procedures will prevent past failures in communication and provide a basic humanitarian standard.
Critics contend
Some might argue that the detailed requirements for information collection, updates, and language access could create significant logistical challenges and administrative overhead for ICE, potentially straining resources.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for timely and compassionate family notification with the administrative and logistical challenges of managing a large detention system with diverse populations.
Section 2(c)
Specific Notification Timeframes and Information
This provision sets strict timeframes for notifications: within 12 hours for deaths (between 6 AM and midnight local time of recipient) and within 12-24 hours for serious illness/injury, depending on severity. It also specifies the detailed information that must be included in these notifications, such as cause of death, circumstances of injury, facility details, and contact information for ICE officials. Notifications must be compassionate, professional, and include counsel of record.
Section 3(b)
Contractor Compliance and Penalties
This section extends the Act's requirements to all covered facilities, regardless of ownership or operation, including contract and intergovernmental facilities. It mandates that all contracts and agreements include compliance with this Act as a material term. Failure to comply results in a civil penalty of $100,000 per day for each unmade notification. Two or more failures at the same facility within 12 months lead to contract termination and a 3-year debarment for the contractor.
Section 6
Civil Action for Violations
This section establishes a civil right of action, allowing aggrieved individuals in custody, their emergency contacts, next-of-kin, or personal representatives to sue the United States, contractors, or their officers/employees for violations of the Act. Prevailing plaintiffs can be awarded actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $100,000 per violation (whichever is greater), punitive damages (except against the U.S.), declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Sovereign immunity is waived for actions under this section.
Section 4 & 5
Reporting, Review, and Oversight
These sections establish comprehensive reporting and oversight requirements. The Secretary of Homeland Security must notify Congress within 24 hours of a covered death, publish public notifications within 2 business days, and complete a detailed death report within 90 days. Each death must be reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility. The Secretary must also submit semiannual reports to Congress on deaths, delayed notifications, releases during medical emergencies, and complaints. The DHS Inspector General is mandated to conduct biennial audits of compliance, and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties must establish a complaint mechanism and report annually on resolutions.
The definitions of 'covered death' and 'in custody' are expansive. 'Covered death' includes deaths occurring within 30 days after an individual's release from custody if ICE knows or reasonably should know of the death. 'In custody' includes individuals being transported by or on behalf of ICE, or receiving medical treatment at a hospital even if formally released during treatment.
Section 8(2) and 8(5)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically placed at the end of a bill, the broad scope of these particular definitions is highly consequential and could be easily overlooked, potentially understating the bill's reach.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these broad definitions are essential to prevent ICE from circumventing notification requirements by releasing critically ill individuals shortly before death or during transport, ensuring accountability for the full scope of ICE's responsibility.
Case against: Some might argue that extending 'covered death' to 30 days post-release, even if ICE 'should know,' could create an overly broad and difficult-to-enforce standard, potentially leading to disputes over causality and knowledge.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of ICE's notification and reporting obligations beyond immediate deaths in detention facilities to include deaths occurring shortly after release or during medical transport/treatment.
The bill explicitly states, 'No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act. This Act shall be carried out using amounts otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security.'
Section 7(b)
Why it matters:This placement is standard legislative practice for such clauses, but its significance for implementation and the potential for unfunded mandates on ICE's existing budget makes it a buried treasure.
Case for: Proponents might argue that this clause demonstrates fiscal responsibility, ensuring the new requirements are met through reprioritization of existing resources rather than increasing federal spending.
Case against: Critics would contend that imposing significant new administrative, reporting, and oversight mandates without additional funding effectively creates an unfunded mandate on ICE, potentially straining existing resources and compromising the quality of implementation or other essential functions.
Estimated impact: Requires ICE to absorb all costs associated with implementing the new policies, procedures, reporting, and oversight from its current budget, potentially leading to resource reallocation or strain.
The United States shall not be immune from suit under this section, and sovereign immunity shall not be a defense to any action brought under this section.
Section 6(d)
Why it matters:While legally precise, the waiver of sovereign immunity is a significant legal shift that could be understated by its concise phrasing within a broader section on civil actions.
Case for: Proponents argue that waiving sovereign immunity is essential to ensure that the United States government itself can be held accountable for violations, providing a full measure of justice for aggrieved parties and a stronger incentive for compliance.
Case against: Opponents might express concern that waiving sovereign immunity could expose the federal government to substantial financial liabilities and a greater volume of lawsuits, potentially impacting taxpayer funds.
Estimated impact: Exposes the U.S. government to direct civil lawsuits and potential financial judgments for violations of the Act, a significant legal shift.