The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 10909·119th Congress·Introduced Oct 26, 2026

Deaths in Custody Reporting Reform Act

IntroducedMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Committees
Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action
Oct 26, 2026

Bottom line

The Deaths in Custody Reporting Reform Act aims to drastically improve the collection, standardization, and public accessibility of data on deaths occurring in federal and state custody, including those involving law enforcement and immigration detention, to inform prevention efforts and increase accountability.

What it actually does

This bill significantly amends the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, expanding the scope of reportable deaths to include various custodial settings and incidents involving law enforcement, and extending reporting to 30 days post-release under specific medical conditions. It shifts reporting authority from the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), mandates detailed data collection and public reporting, establishes a review panel with subpoena power, and requires the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to integrate "death in custody" indicators into death certificates and facilitate data access. It also imposes new disclosure and investigation requirements for deaths in immigration detention facilities.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that this bill addresses critical gaps in current data collection on deaths in custody, which are essential for understanding the scale of the problem, identifying systemic issues, and developing effective prevention strategies. They emphasize the need for transparency and accountability from law enforcement and correctional facilities, highlighting that better data can lead to improved policies, reduced fatalities, and increased public trust. The inclusion of a review panel and open-source data collection mechanisms are seen as crucial steps towards ensuring comprehensive and credible reporting.

Opponents contend

While broad opposition to improved data collection on deaths in custody is uncommon, potential concerns from some agencies or jurisdictions might include the increased administrative burden and cost associated with the expanded reporting requirements, particularly for smaller entities. Some might also raise privacy concerns regarding the public disclosure of detailed, de-identified data, or question the scope of "death in custody" definitions, arguing that deaths occurring post-release or during certain law enforcement encounters might not be directly attributable to custodial conditions.

The bill is moderately complex due to its technical amendments to existing law and detailed procedural requirements, but its length makes it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.

Section 2 of the amended Act (page 2)

Expanded Purposes of the Act

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section explicitly outlines the expanded goals of the Act, which include improving reporting across a wider range of custodial settings (jails, prisons, temporary law enforcement detention, immigration, juvenile facilities, private facilities), understanding the prevalence and characteristics of these deaths, developing prevention policies, increasing data availability at all levels, and standardizing definitions for data collection. It clarifies that deaths in transit, departing facilities, or involving law enforcement during arrest/pursuit are included.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupFederal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, immigration detention facilities, juvenile facilities, private entities operating such facilitiesImpactIncreased scope of reporting obligations and scrutinyMechanismExplicitly broadens the types of deaths and locations that must be reported under the ActScaleSystemic, affecting all covered custodial and law enforcement entities

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that a clear and comprehensive statement of purpose is essential to guide the implementation of the Act and ensure that all relevant deaths are captured, leading to a more complete understanding of the issue.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against a statement of purpose, though underlying concerns about the breadth of reporting might implicitly extend here.

Tradeoffs

Balances the need for comprehensive data with potential concerns about the administrative burden on reporting entities.

Section 3(a) and (b) of the amended Act (pages 3-4)

Enhanced State Death in Custody Reporting to BJS

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision shifts the responsibility for collecting state death in custody reports from the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). It significantly expands the data points required for each death, including date of birth, manner and cause of death, location of incident (e.g., during encounter, transport, facility, healthcare), whether an investigation was conducted, and if use of force was involved. It also requires reporting the date the deceased entered custody and the average daily population of the facility.

Section 3(c) of the amended Act (page 4)

State Reporting Deadline Extension and Compliance Incentives

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section extends the deadline for states to submit reports from 120 days to 270 days after the end of each fiscal year. It also introduces a new provision for the first fiscal year after enactment, allowing states that fail to comply with reporting requirements to dedicate funds that would otherwise be reallocated to other states towards assisting their own compliance efforts.

Section 5 of the amended Act (pages 5-6)

NIJ Study on Death Reduction and Management Actions

prominently featuredstraightforward

This new section mandates the Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct a study using the reported death in custody information. The study must identify means to reduce such deaths and examine the relationship between the number of deaths and the actions of management or personnel in jails, prisons, and other carceral facilities. NIJ is required to submit a final report to Congress every three years and an interim report after one year, and may provide grants for research and identification/reporting assistance.

Section 6 of the amended Act (pages 6-8)

Annual Public Reports and Database on Deaths in Custody

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section requires the Director of BJS to submit an annual report to Congress and make it publicly available online by July 31 each year. The report must include searchable data on deaths in custody, disaggregated by demographics, facility, location, cause, and manner of death, including deaths within 30 days post-release under specific medical conditions. BJS must also create a publicly accessible, machine-readable, and searchable database of de-identified death in custody information, including open-source data. It also mandates BJS, in consultation with NCHS, to develop consensus definitions for manner of death.

Section 7 of the amended Act (pages 8-12)

Establishment of an Independent Review Panel with Subpoena Authority

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section establishes a six-member Review Panel, appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with specific expertise requirements (e.g., vital statistics, forensic pathology, correctional research, public health, National Academies, family members of deceased, formerly incarcerated individuals). The Panel is tasked with assessing compliance, examining reporting barriers, holding annual public hearings (with subpoena authority for testimony from officials and other parties), and submitting annual recommendations to the Attorney General and other agencies to improve reporting and reduce deaths. It explicitly prohibits ranking custodial systems for compliance or penalizing jurisdictions for higher incidence of death.

Section 8 of the amended Act (pages 12-13)

Integration of Death in Custody Data into National Health Statistics

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section requires the Director of NCHS to include a checkbox or equivalent designation on the U.S. standard certificate of death to indicate whether a death was "in custody" within one year of enactment. NCHS must also provide guidance to states to adopt similar designations on their death certificates. Furthermore, it mandates NCHS to make records from the National Death Index, including cause of death information, available at no cost to qualified requesters for research, reporting, or documenting deaths in custody, overriding existing privacy restrictions.

Section 9 of the amended Act (pages 13-15)

Enhanced Reporting and Review for Deaths in Immigration Detention

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section imposes specific requirements on the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for "covered deaths" (deaths in custody, during arrest/pursuit by ICE/CBP, or within 30 days post-release from immigration detention). It requires public disclosure of such deaths within 48 hours, completion of an investigation within 90 days (examining circumstances, forensic reports, eyewitness accounts, medical records, and standard of care), and a detailed public report within 90 days. It also mandates a joint annual report to Congress assessing patterns and recommending prevention strategies.

Section 12 of the amended Act (page 18)

Funding Authorization for Key Act Sections

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section authorizes the appropriation of $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2037 to carry out sections 5 (NIJ Study), 6 (BJS Reporting), 7 (Review Panel), and 8 (NCHS Integration) of the Act.

FOUND

This section explicitly states that information reported under this Act shall be considered public information, notwithstanding regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and sections of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 related to privacy.

Section 10 of the amended Act (page 15)

Why it matters:While critical for data transparency, overriding major privacy laws like HIPAA is a significant legal step that could be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on reporting mechanics. Its placement might be standard legislative practice for legal carve-outs, but its impact is profound.

Case for: Proponents argue that this override is essential to ensure the public accessibility of death in custody data, which is crucial for transparency, accountability, and public health research, especially since the publicly released database will be de-identified.

Case against: Privacy advocates might raise concerns that even with de-identification, the broad exemption from HIPAA and other privacy laws sets a concerning precedent or could lead to re-identification risks, potentially eroding trust in data collection efforts.

Estimated impact: Significantly broadens public access to data on deaths in custody by overriding federal privacy protections.

FOUND

This section provides extensive definitions for key terms, most notably "death in custody," "death in Federal custody," and "death in State custody." These definitions are broad, encompassing deaths during detention, arrest, pursuit, transport, incarceration in various facilities (including private and juvenile), and significantly, deaths occurring up to 30 days after release if related to a medical or psychiatric condition at the time of release.

Section 11 of the amended Act (pages 15-18)

Why it matters:Defining terms comprehensively is standard legislative practice. However, the expansive nature of the "death in custody" definitions, particularly the 30-day post-release clause, is a critical policy choice that could be easily overlooked within a lengthy definitions section.

Case for: Proponents argue that precise and broad definitions are essential to prevent underreporting and ensure that all relevant deaths are captured, especially those that occur shortly after release due to conditions developed or exacerbated in custody, providing a more accurate picture of custodial impact.

Case against: Some agencies might argue that the 30-day post-release inclusion, particularly for medical conditions, extends the definition of "in custody" too broadly, making it difficult to attribute causation directly to custodial conditions and significantly increasing the administrative burden for tracking and reporting.

Estimated impact: Significantly expands the universe of reportable deaths, potentially increasing the reported incidence of deaths attributable to custody.

FOUND

This subsection explicitly prohibits the Review Panel from ranking custodial systems by the incidence of death in custody for the purposes of compliance and enforcement, and from facilitating a forum for penalizing a jurisdiction for a higher incidence of death in custody.

Section 7(c)(1)(C) of the amended Act (page 11)

Why it matters:This provision is likely a political compromise designed to gain buy-in from state and local jurisdictions and federal agencies by assuring them that the Panel's role is to improve reporting and reduce deaths, not to create a punitive ranking system. Its placement is strategic to address potential concerns without making it the primary focus.

Case for: Proponents of this limitation argue that it fosters cooperation from reporting agencies by ensuring the Panel focuses on systemic improvements and best practices rather than shaming or penalizing individual entities, which could lead to more honest and complete reporting.

Case against: Critics might argue that without the ability to rank or directly penalize, the Panel's oversight power is diminished, potentially reducing the incentive for some jurisdictions to improve their performance beyond basic compliance.

Estimated impact: Shapes the cooperative rather than punitive nature of the Review Panel's oversight, influencing agency engagement.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
Ask Ledger AI about this