End Solitary Confinement Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to virtually eliminate solitary confinement in federal and contracted facilities, mandate extensive out-of-cell interaction, and establish robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms to ensure humane treatment of incarcerated individuals.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits solitary confinement in all federal facilities and by federal contractors, establishing strict minimum standards for out-of-cell time and meaningful human interaction. It creates narrow, time-limited exceptions for emergencies and medical needs, with specific due process requirements and prohibitions for vulnerable populations. The bill also establishes an independent community monitoring body, mandates public reporting, creates a private cause of action for violations, and provides incentives for states to comply with its standards.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses the inhumane and torturous practice of solitary confinement, which causes severe physical and mental harm, is disproportionately applied to marginalized groups, and is costly and ineffective. They contend it promotes safer environments, better reentry outcomes, and aligns the U.S. with international human rights standards by focusing on rehabilitation and meaningful interaction.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill overly restricts correctional staff's ability to manage dangerous individuals or maintain facility safety, potentially leading to increased violence within prisons. They may contend that the strict time limits and prohibitions on certain populations from solitary confinement could compromise security and that alternative units might not be sufficient for all high-risk situations.
The bill is moderately complex due to its detailed definitions, exceptions, and procedural requirements, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications.
Section 3(a), 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(1)-(2)
Prohibition on Solitary Confinement and Minimum Standards for Interaction
This provision prohibits placing any person incarcerated in a federal facility in solitary confinement, except for very limited, short durations (e.g., during counts or specific emergencies). It mandates that all incarcerated persons must have access to at least 14 hours per day of out-of-cell congregate interaction in a shared space, including not less than 7 hours of structured programming and 1 hour of recreation.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is essential to end the torturous practice of solitary confinement, which causes severe psychological and physical harm. They contend that increased social interaction and programming lead to better behavior, improved mental health, and more successful reentry outcomes, ultimately enhancing overall facility safety.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that these strict limits on solitary confinement and mandates for congregate interaction could compromise facility security and staff safety, particularly when managing individuals who pose significant threats. They might contend that correctional staff need more flexibility to isolate dangerous individuals.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between ensuring humane treatment and maintaining order and safety within correctional facilities. It prioritizes human rights and rehabilitation, potentially at the cost of traditional disciplinary tools.
Section 3(a), 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(2)(D)
Prohibition on Involuntary Confinement for Vulnerable Populations
This section explicitly prohibits the involuntary confinement of specific vulnerable populations in a cell for emergency de-escalation purposes. These protected groups include individuals aged 25 or younger, 55 or older, those with disabilities, diagnosed mental health needs, pregnant or postpartum individuals, and those identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming.
Section 3(a), 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(3)-(4)
Due Process Requirements for Alternative Unit Placement
This provision establishes stringent due process requirements for placing an incarcerated person in an 'alternative unit' (any housing more restrictive than the general population). Placement requires a formal hearing with clear and convincing evidence of specific severe acts, a neutral decision-maker, and the right to representation. Such placements are subject to regular review and cannot exceed 60 days in any 6-month period, except for protective custody or voluntary requests.
Section 3(a), 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(6)
Prohibition on Special Administrative Measures (SAMs)
This provision explicitly prohibits all federal facilities from using 'special administrative measures' (SAMs), which are restrictive conditions of confinement typically imposed on individuals deemed to pose a significant threat to national security or public safety. SAMs often involve severe restrictions on communication and contact.
Section 3(b), 18 U.S.C. 4015(b)
Mandatory Public Reporting Requirements
This provision mandates that each federal agency operating or contracting with facilities must publicly report quarterly on its website. The report must include data on incidents of self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicides, as well as the total number of placements and individuals in various types of restrictive housing. All data must be disaggregated by race, age, gender identity, mental health status, disability, pregnancy/postpartum status, and LGBTQI+ identification.
Section 3(c), 18 U.S.C. 4015(c)
Private Cause of Action for Violations
This provision creates a private right of action, allowing any person injured by a violation of the Act to bring a civil action in federal court. Remedies include declaratory and injunctive relief (potentially directing the closure of facilities with systemic non-compliance), money damages for emotional pain and suffering, and reasonable attorney's fees. It also includes specific exemptions from liability for certain extraordinary, short-term facility-wide lockdowns.
Section 4(a), 18 U.S.C. 4016
Establishment of Community Monitoring Body
This provision establishes an independent community monitoring body, appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with other agency officials, with a membership largely composed of individuals with lived experience of incarceration or advocacy. This body has broad powers, including unannounced visits to federal facilities, access to all areas and non-classified data, and the ability to conduct private, confidential interviews with incarcerated persons and staff. It is tasked with making recommendations to agencies and Congress.
Section 5(a), 18 U.S.C. 4017
State Incentives to End Solitary Confinement
This provision requires any state or local entity receiving federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) funds to annually certify substantial compliance with the Act's standards for ending solitary confinement and ensuring 14 hours of out-of-cell congregate interaction. Non-compliant entities face a reduction of at least 10% in their Byrne JAG funds, though funding for public defenders and community-based non-carceral services is exempted from these reductions.
Section 7, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e)
Removal of Limitation on Recovery for Mental/Emotional Injury
This section amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act to allow incarcerated individuals to bring federal civil actions for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury, if the injury resulted from placement in solitary confinement or an 'alternative unit'. Previously, physical injury was generally required for such claims.
Section 9(b)
Prohibition on Use of Funds for New Restrictive Infrastructure
This provision prohibits any funds appropriated to carry out the Act from being used for constructing facilities where persons will be incarcerated, renovating buildings or spaces within facilities to be more restrictive, or constructing/installing any weapons or devices that restrict movement or create more restrictive environments.
The definitions of 'Federal agency' and 'Federal facility' are exceptionally broad, including not only direct federal operations (e.g., BOP, ICE, HHS) but also 'any Federal, State, local, or private entity that has contracted with any of the entities listed... for holding or providing services to people in their care or custody.'
Section 6, 18 U.S.C. 4018(5)-(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but its broad scope significantly expands the bill's reach beyond what a reader might initially assume from the title.
Case for: Supporters argue that including contractors is essential to prevent federal agencies from circumventing the law by outsourcing services to facilities that continue to use solitary confinement. This ensures comprehensive application of the Act's protections.
Case against: Critics might argue that this broad reach imposes federal standards on state, local, and private entities that may not be equipped or funded to comply, potentially leading to widespread non-compliance or withdrawal from federal contracts.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of the bill to potentially thousands of state, local, and private facilities that contract with federal agencies for incarceration or services.
The term 'solitary confinement' is defined as 'being confined in a cell or other space without access to meaningful group interaction in a shared space.'
Section 6, 18 U.S.C. 4018(14)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for defining terms, but this specific definition is key to the bill's operative effect.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition is crucial for setting a clear, enforceable standard that goes beyond mere physical isolation to ensure meaningful human contact, which is essential for mental well-being.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition is too broad and could be difficult to implement consistently across diverse facility types, potentially leading to disputes over what constitutes 'meaningful group interaction.'
Estimated impact: Establishes the fundamental threshold for what constitutes prohibited solitary confinement, impacting all housing decisions.
The term 'mental health need' is broadly defined as 'having any current mental health diagnosis by any medical or mental health professional, or having had any such mental health diagnosis during the previous 2 years.'
Section 6, 18 U.S.C. 4018(9)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice, but the expansive nature of this definition is a key detail.
Case for: Supporters argue that this broad definition is necessary to protect a wide range of individuals who are vulnerable to the harms of solitary confinement, recognizing that mental health challenges can be ongoing or recurrent.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could make it extremely difficult to manage individuals with significant behavioral issues who have a past mental health diagnosis, potentially limiting staff's ability to ensure safety.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the population protected from involuntary confinement under 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(2)(D), potentially affecting a large percentage of incarcerated individuals.
The term 'attempting' (in the context of acts leading to alternative unit placement) means 'having the intent to carry out a particular act and completing significant steps in the advancement of the attempt,' with 'evidence of withdrawal or abandonment of a plan to carry out a particular act shall negate a finding of intent.'
Section 6, 18 U.S.C. 4018(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for precise legal definitions, but it adds a high bar for proving 'attempt' in disciplinary contexts.
Case for: Proponents argue that this precise definition prevents individuals from being placed in restrictive housing based on mere thoughts or minor preparatory actions, ensuring that only serious, concrete attempts are considered. It also incentivizes de-escalation and withdrawal.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition sets too high a bar for disciplinary action, potentially making it difficult to intervene proactively against serious threats before they fully materialize.
Estimated impact: Raises the evidentiary standard for placing individuals in alternative units based on attempted acts, potentially reducing such placements.
The Act and its amendments 'shall take effect not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.'
Section 11
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for effective dates, but the short timeframe for such comprehensive changes is highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue that the urgency of ending solitary confinement, which they deem torture, necessitates rapid implementation. They believe that a swift effective date will force agencies to prioritize and accelerate reforms.
Case against: Critics would argue that a 60-day effective date for such a comprehensive overhaul of federal and contracted correctional systems is unrealistic and potentially unachievable, leading to compliance failures, operational chaos, or unintended negative consequences.
Estimated impact: Forces federal agencies and contractors to implement massive operational, staffing, and programmatic changes within two months of enactment, a highly ambitious timeline.