End Solitary Confinement Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 28, 2025
Bottom line
The End Solitary Confinement Act seeks to virtually eliminate solitary confinement across the federal carceral system and encourage state-level reform through a combination of strict prohibitions, robust oversight, and financial incentives.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the use of solitary confinement in all Federal facilities and entities contracting with Federal agencies, establishing strict minimum standards for out-of-cell time and meaningful human interaction. It mandates due process for any restrictive housing placements, creates independent oversight bodies, and incentivizes states to adopt similar reforms by linking compliance to federal grant funding. The bill also removes barriers for incarcerated individuals to sue for mental or emotional injury resulting from solitary confinement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that solitary confinement is a form of torture that causes devastating physical and psychological harm, is disproportionately inflicted on vulnerable populations, and is ineffective at increasing safety while being costly to taxpayers. They contend that ending solitary confinement will improve human rights, reduce violence, enhance well-being, and align the U.S. with international standards for humane treatment.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that solitary confinement, or at least some form of restrictive housing, is a necessary tool for maintaining order and safety within correctional facilities, particularly for managing individuals who pose a significant threat to staff or other incarcerated persons. They might also raise concerns about the administrative burden and potential costs associated with implementing the extensive new requirements for out-of-cell time, programming, and due process, as well as potential federal overreach into state and local correctional practices.
The bill is detailed and requires careful reading to understand its full scope and implications, but it is accessible to an informed reader.
Section 3, 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(1)-(2)
Prohibition on Solitary Confinement and Minimum Out-of-Cell Standards
This provision generally prohibits placing individuals incarcerated in Federal facilities in solitary confinement. 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 structured programming and recreation. Limited exceptions for emergency confinement are strictly time-bound (e.g., maximum 4 hours in a 24-hour period) and require de-escalation efforts.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is essential to end the inhumane practice of solitary confinement, which causes severe psychological and physical harm. They contend that increased out-of-cell time and meaningful engagement lead to better mental health outcomes, reduced recidivism, and a safer environment for both incarcerated individuals and staff.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that strict limits on solitary confinement and mandated congregate interaction could compromise facility security and staff safety, especially when dealing with individuals deemed highly dangerous or disruptive. They might contend that the narrow emergency exceptions are insufficient to manage all potential threats effectively.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between ensuring humane treatment and maintaining facility security. It prioritizes human rights and rehabilitation over punitive isolation, while attempting to provide minimal, time-limited exceptions for immediate safety concerns.
Section 3, 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(2)(D)
Prohibition on Involuntary Confinement for Vulnerable Populations
This section explicitly prohibits the involuntary confinement in a cell, even for emergency de-escalation purposes, for specific vulnerable populations. These include individuals aged 25 or younger, 55 or older, those with disabilities or diagnosed mental health needs, pregnant or postpartum individuals, and those who identify as or are perceived to be LGBTQI+.
Section 3, 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(3)-(4)
Due Process Requirements for Restrictive Housing ('Alternative Units')
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 hearing with a neutral decision-maker, clear and convincing evidence of specific serious acts (e.g., causing serious injury, riot), and the right to representation. Stays in alternative units are generally limited to 60 days within any 6-month period, with regular multidisciplinary reviews.
Section 3, 18 U.S.C. 4015(a)(6)
Prohibition on Special Administrative Measures (SAMs)
This provision explicitly prohibits Federal facilities from using Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), which are highly restrictive conditions of confinement imposed on certain incarcerated individuals, often involving extreme isolation and severe restrictions on communication.
Section 3, 18 U.S.C. 4015(c)
Private Cause of Action for Violations
This provision creates a private cause of action, allowing any person injured by a violation of the Act's solitary confinement prohibitions or minimum standards to bring a civil action in federal court. Remedies include declaratory and injunctive relief (potentially facility closure for systemic noncompliance), money damages for emotional pain and suffering, and attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs. It also includes specific protections against liability for certain extraordinary lockdowns.
Section 4, 18 U.S.C. 4016
Establishment of an Independent Community Monitoring Body
This provision establishes an independent Community Monitoring Body, appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with other agency officials, with at least 15 members including survivors of solitary confinement, faith leaders, and civil rights advocates. This body and its designees will have broad, unannounced access to Federal facilities, data, and the ability to conduct confidential interviews with incarcerated persons (with consent) to monitor compliance and make recommendations.
Section 5, 18 U.S.C. 4017
State Incentives via Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
This provision requires states and local entities receiving funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program to annually certify substantial compliance with the Act's standards for ending solitary confinement within 180 days of enactment. Failure to comply will result in a reduction of not less than 10 percent of their JAG funds, though funding for public defenders, community-based mental health care, drug treatment, and violence interruption services are exempted from these reductions.
Section 7, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e)
Removal of Physical Injury Requirement for Civil Actions Related to Solitary Confinement
This provision amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) to allow incarcerated persons to bring federal civil actions for mental or emotional injury suffered while in solitary confinement or an alternative unit, without requiring a prior showing of physical injury. Previously, such claims often required evidence of physical harm.
The definitions of 'Federal agency' and 'Federal facility' are exceptionally broad, encompassing not only direct federal operations (BOP, ICE, DHS, USMS, HHS, ORR) 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 the scope of terms used throughout the Act. However, the expansive nature of these definitions is highly consequential.
Case for: Supporters argue that this broad definition is essential to ensure comprehensive reform across the entire federal carceral system, including privatized facilities and those operated by state/local governments under federal contract. This prevents loopholes where federal agencies could outsource detention to avoid compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue that this represents an overreach of federal authority, imposing federal standards on state, local, and private entities that may have different operational models or regulatory frameworks, potentially leading to compliance challenges or a reduction in entities willing to contract with federal agencies.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of the bill's prohibitions and requirements to potentially thousands of facilities and entities nationwide that interact with federal detention or custody.
This section prohibits the use of any funds appropriated to carry out the Act for (1) buildings and facilities appropriations for various federal agencies (BOP, DHS, USMS, HHS), (2) constructing facilities where persons will be incarcerated, (3) constructing or renovating buildings or spaces within facilities where persons are or will be incarcerated, or (4) constructing, installing, or introducing any weapons, restrictive devices, or mechanisms that limit movement or create more restrictive environments.
Section 9(b)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to control the use of funds and prevent them from being used for purposes contrary to the bill's underlying policy goals. It's a policy rider on appropriations.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is vital to prevent federal funds from inadvertently or intentionally being used to perpetuate or expand the carceral system, especially in ways that could facilitate solitary confinement or other restrictive practices. It ensures that resources are directed towards humane alternatives.
Case against: Critics might argue that this prohibition could limit the flexibility of federal agencies to make necessary infrastructure improvements or adapt facilities for legitimate security needs, even if those improvements are not directly related to solitary confinement. It could hinder efforts to modernize facilities or address overcrowding.
Estimated impact: Prevents federal funds from being used for new carceral construction or renovation that could enable restrictive housing, potentially shifting investment towards programming and less restrictive environments.