Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act seeks to fundamentally reform the U.S. immigration detention system by enhancing oversight, establishing robust due process protections, and shifting away from punitive detention models towards more humane, community-based alternatives.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new, comprehensive standards for facilities detaining aliens in DHS custody, mandating adherence to American Bar Association Civil Immigration Detention Standards. It phases out private detention facilities and the use of jails for immigrant detention, replacing them with government-owned and operated facilities or community-based programs. Crucially, it repeals mandatory detention provisions, establishes probable cause and custody redetermination hearings with a presumption of release, prohibits the detention of children, and bans solitary confinement for all detainees.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current immigration detention system is inhumane, costly, and often violates fundamental human rights and due process. They contend that this bill would ensure dignified treatment for individuals, particularly vulnerable populations, by establishing clear, enforceable standards, increasing transparency, and prioritizing alternatives to detention that are both more effective and less harmful. The phase-out of private facilities is seen as a critical step to remove profit motives from detention.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's provisions, particularly the presumption of release and the restrictions on detention, could undermine national security and border enforcement efforts, making it harder to deter illegal immigration and ensure the appearance of individuals for removal proceedings. Concerns could also be raised about the fiscal implications of transitioning to entirely government-owned and operated facilities and the potential for increased administrative burden on DHS and the courts.
The bill is moderately complex due to its detailed amendments to existing law, but its length allows for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the bill the "Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act," providing a concise and publicly recognizable title for the legislation.
Supporters argue
A clear and descriptive short title helps communicate the bill's intent and purpose to the public and stakeholders.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, though the title itself may reflect a policy stance.
Tradeoffs
None for the short title itself.
Section 2
Sense of Congress Regarding Child Detention
This section expresses the belief of Congress that detaining children, even for short periods, causes severe and irreparable harm and should be avoided. While not legally binding, it sets a guiding principle for the bill's subsequent provisions.
Section 4
Establishment of Detention Standards
This section mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security establish, within one year, detention standards for all facilities holding aliens in DHS custody. These standards must, at a minimum, meet the protections outlined in the American Bar Association's Civil Immigration Detention Standards (2012, modified 2014) and be reviewed and updated biennially.
Section 5
Enhanced Oversight and Public Transparency
This section requires annual, unannounced, in-person inspections of all detention facilities by the DHS Inspector General. Reports must be public. Facilities failing to comply with standards face fines (for contractors) or warnings/remedial measures (for DHS-owned). Subsequent failures lead to contract termination or suspension of DHS facilities. It also mandates investigations and public reports for deaths in custody, and requires a publicly accessible "Facilities Matrix" with detailed information on each facility and an updated online detainee locator system. Contracts with private entities are explicitly made subject to FOIA.
Section 6
Right to Civil Action for Standards Violations
This section grants individuals detained in DHS facilities the right to file a civil claim in federal court if they are injured as a result of a violation of the established detention standards. Courts may order injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and award attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Section 7
Transition to Government-Owned and Operated Facilities
This section prohibits DHS from entering into or extending contracts with private for-profit entities for secure detention facilities or nonresidential alternatives to detention programs. All existing contracts must be terminated within three years of enactment, after which all such facilities and programs must be owned and operated by the Department or by nonprofit organizations (for alternatives to detention). It also requires a plan for implementation and mandates indoor, climate-controlled visitor waiting areas.
Section 9(a), amending INA Section 236
Due Process for Detention and Release
This section significantly amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to require an initial custody determination within 48 hours of arrest and a hearing before an immigration judge within 72 hours if the alien challenges the determination. It establishes a presumption of release, which DHS must rebut with clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or danger. It mandates the least restrictive conditions for release, including community-based programs (excluding electronic surveillance), and requires monthly review of conditions. Special protections are added for "vulnerable persons" and "primary caregivers," who may not be detained unless community-based supervision is unreasonable or impracticable. Subsequent de novo custody hearings are required every 60 days.
Section 9(e), amending INA Section 236
Prohibition on Child Detention by ICE
This section explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from detaining any individual under the age of 18 in a facility operated or contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This reinforces the Sense of Congress in Section 2.
Section 9(f), amending INA Section 236
Establishment of Community-Based Case Management
This section mandates the creation of a community-based case management program, outside of ICE's purview, to provide alternatives to detention. It offers support services like case management, medical/mental health services, housing, and legal aid, in appropriate languages. It explicitly prohibits electronic surveillance (like ankle monitors) as an alternative to detention. The Secretary must prioritize contracts with qualified nongovernmental community-based organizations and conduct a study on best practices and feasibility of transferring these programs out of DHS.
Section 9(c), amending various INA sections
Repeal of Mandatory Detention Provisions
This section repeals various provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that currently mandate detention for certain categories of aliens, such as those with specific criminal convictions or those deemed inadmissible. It specifically strikes Section 236A, which dealt with mandatory detention for suspected terrorists. This change means that all detention decisions would be subject to the new custody determination hearings and presumption of release established in Section 9(a).
Section 9(d), amending INA Section 241(a)
Post-Order Custody Redetermination and Release
This section reduces the "removal period" from 90 to 60 days. It mandates an initial custody redetermination hearing within 72 hours of a final removal order, with a presumption of detention during the 60-day removal period unless the alien proves removal is not foreseeable and they pose no risk. After the 60-day period, aliens must be released subject to supervision, unless DHS requests subsequent 60-day detention periods by showing the alien's removal is reasonably foreseeable OR they pose a risk (based on credible, individualized information, not just charges/suspicions).
Section 10
Ban on Solitary Confinement
This section explicitly prohibits the placement of any individual in DHS custody into solitary confinement, defined as confinement to one's cell (alone or with a cellmate) pursuant to disciplinary, administrative, or classification action, excluding designated sleeping time.
Sections 11 and 12
Guaranteed Legal Orientation and Access to Counsel
Section 11 mandates that all detention facilities provide access to the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), operated by a nonprofit, for all detainees as soon as practicable, and before their initial hearing. Section 12 ensures that aliens with counsel have private, confidential access to their attorneys through in-person, telephonic, or televideo meetings.
Section 13
Unrestricted Congressional Access to Facilities
This section grants Members of Congress and their designated staff (covered persons) the right to enter any DHS detention facility for oversight purposes without prior notice (for Members) or with 24-hour notice (for staff not accompanying a Member). It explicitly prohibits temporary modifications to facilities that would alter what a visiting covered person observes.
This subsection defines "vulnerable person" to include individuals under 21 or over 60, pregnant individuals, LGBTQI+ individuals, victims/witnesses of crime, those who filed nonfrivolous civil rights claims, material witnesses to bona fide workplace claims, those with serious mental/physical illness/disability, those with credible fear of persecution/torture, those with limited English proficiency not provided timely language services, and survivors of severe trauma or gender-based violence. "Primary caregiver" is defined as a caregiver, parent, or close relative caring for or traveling with a child. These categories receive special protection against detention.
Section 9(c)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that are then used to trigger specific protections or requirements. The length of the definition is a function of its comprehensiveness.
Case for: Proponents argue that these definitions are crucial for identifying and protecting the most vulnerable individuals in the immigration system, ensuring they receive appropriate consideration for release and alternatives to detention.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broadness of the "vulnerable person" definition could significantly expand the number of individuals for whom detention is difficult, potentially straining alternative programs or increasing flight risks.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the population eligible for special protections against detention, potentially reducing the overall detained population and increasing reliance on community-based programs.
This clause explicitly states that the new community-based case management program "may not include, as an alternative to detention, the provision of ankle monitors or or other forms of electronic surveillance."
Section 9(f)(2)
Why it matters:This is a specific policy directive within a larger program design. It's not necessarily evasive but could be missed by a reader focusing on the overall program structure.
Case for: Proponents argue that electronic surveillance is often punitive, ineffective, and stigmatizing, and that true community-based alternatives should focus on support and trust rather than monitoring.
Case against: Critics would contend that electronic surveillance is a valuable tool for ensuring compliance and appearance, especially for individuals deemed a higher flight risk, and its prohibition removes a useful option for managing non-detained populations.
Estimated impact: Eliminates a widely used form of monitoring for non-detained immigrants, requiring DHS to rely solely on other forms of supervision or release.
This subsection explicitly states that the Inspector General's inspection reports, death investigation reports, and any contracts between DHS and private/public entities for detention facilities are considered records for FOIA purposes and "do not qualify for the exception under subsection (b)(4) of such section." Subsection (b)(4) of FOIA protects "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
Section 5(d)
Why it matters:This is a technical legal clarification that has significant implications for transparency. It's placed logically within the transparency section but requires attention to detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures maximum transparency for detention operations, preventing DHS or its contractors from withholding crucial information about facility conditions or financial arrangements under the guise of commercial confidentiality.
Case against: Private contractors might argue that this provision could expose proprietary business information, potentially making them less willing to contract with the government or reducing competition.
Estimated impact: Increases public and media access to information regarding detention facility operations and the financial details of private detention contracts.