The Stop Shackling and Detaining Pregnant Women Act (S.916) requires the Department of Homeland Security to presume release of noncitizens who are pregnant, lactating, or within the postpartum period and to provide pregnancy testing at intake. It sets strict limits on detention (including a short, narrowly defined pre-removal detention window), forbids most restraints on pregnant or postpartum individuals, and requires access to a broad set of reproductive-health services while in custody.
The bill also imposes operational duties on DHS and detention facilities: weekly individualized reviews of any rare detentions of pregnant people, written documentation when restraints are used, mandatory training and notice of rights, quarterly facility reporting and an annual DHS audit, and a directive to issue regulations establishing minimum medical standards. These provisions shift detention practice toward release and oversight and create concrete compliance and reporting obligations for ICE, CBP, facility operators, and their contractors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires pregnancy testing at initial medical screening and establishes a presumption that pregnant, lactating, and postpartum noncitizens will be released rather than detained, subject only to narrow "extraordinary circumstance" exceptions. It bans most physical restraints on these individuals, mandates access to pregnancy- and postpartum-related health care (including abortion services), and requires facility-level reporting and DHS rulemaking to set minimum standards.
Who It Affects
Primary operational targets are DHS components (ICE and CBP), detention facility administrators, private contractors who run or staff facilities, detention officers, and the medical personnel who deliver care. It directly affects pregnant, lactating, and postpartum noncitizens in custody and indirectly affects local hospitals and community health providers that receive released or transferred patients.
Why It Matters
The bill changes the default posture for pregnant detainees from custody to release and imposes new transparency and documentation duties that will affect detention operations, transport logistics, and medical staffing. Compliance will require changes to intake procedures, training programs, recordkeeping systems, and contracts with private facilities and health-care providers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.916 starts by defining key terms (pregnancy, postpartum, restraint, facility, detention officer) and makes clear its scope applies to individuals held under immigration authority at federal, state, local, and contract facilities. It requires that every person processed into custody receive a pregnancy test during the initial medical screening so that pregnancy status is known early in the intake workflow.
The statutory centerpiece is a presumption of release: the Secretary of Homeland Security may not detain, arrest, or hold a person known to be pregnant, lactating, or postpartum while decisions about removal are pending. The bill allows only a narrow exception for "extraordinary circumstances," which must be based on an individualized determination that the person poses an immediate and serious risk to others or is an immediate escape risk that cannot be mitigated by alternatives to detention; even then detention must be reevaluated at least weekly and, if detention is necessary only to effectuate removal, the person may be held in temporary housing for no more than five days immediately prior to removal.On conditions in custody, the bill largely eliminates routine use of restraints for pregnant and postpartum detainees.
It specifies which restraint types are categorically forbidden (leg, waist, 4‑point, and binding wrists behind the back; face‑down positioning; and any restraint during labor/delivery) and requires that any permitted restraint in an extraordinary case be the least restrictive option. If a treating clinician objects, detention officers must remove restraints immediately.
The statute also restricts nonmedical staff from being present during pelvic or breast exams, labor, delivery, or related treatment except on a limited, clinician‑requested basis and prescribes privacy-oriented positioning when a nonmedical staff member is present.On medical care and release logistics, the bill requires ICE and CBP to ensure detained pregnant people have access to comprehensive prenatal, labor and delivery, substance‑use and postpartum care, lactation services, contraception continuation, and abortion services, and it forbids medical treatment without informed consent. Facility administrators must keep arrangements with the nearest maternity hospital and policy plans for emergencies.
When a pregnant person is released, the facility must prepare and transfer complete medical records, medications, and health supplies and notify counsel, sponsors, or service providers.Finally, the bill builds oversight and transparency through quarterly facility reports about restraint use and pregnancy outcomes, an annual DHS audit and a consolidated report to specified congressional committees, mandatory rights notices in a language the detainee understands, annual staff training, and a requirement that DHS issue regulations to implement minimum medical-care standards for pregnant detainees.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires pregnancy testing for every individual during initial medical screening upon processing into DHS custody.
It creates a statutory presumption of release for pregnant, lactating, and postpartum noncitizens, permitting detention only in narrowly defined "extraordinary circumstances.", If detention is necessary solely to effectuate removal, the bill limits that pre‑removal detention in temporary housing to no more than 5 days.
The statute prohibits most restraints on pregnant or postpartum detainees, explicitly forbids leg, waist, 4‑point restraints and binding wrists behind the back, and requires immediate removal of restraints at a clinician's request.
Facilities must file quarterly reports on restraint use and pregnancy outcomes; DHS must audit annually, publish a disaggregated report to Congress, and issue regulations setting minimum medical-care standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions that frame scope and standards
This section supplies the operational vocabulary: who counts as a "detained noncitizen," what devices qualify as "restraints," and how "postpartum" is measured (at least one year unless a clinician says otherwise). For implementers that matters because the statutory protections attach whenever the defined categories are met, across federal, state, local, and contract facilities. The detailed list of restraint types narrows later interpretation disputes by enumerating common devices and excluding medical restraints from the ban.
Intake pregnancy testing
The Secretary must provide access to pregnancy testing during the initial medical screening for everyone processed into custody. Administratively, that forces DHS to add pregnancy testing to intake checklists, adjust health intake staffing and supplies, and capture pregnancy status in custody records so subsequent presumptions and protections trigger reliably.
Presumption of release with narrow detention exceptions
The Secretary may not detain known pregnant, lactating, or postpartum people pending removal decisions, except under "extraordinary circumstances" after an individualized finding that the person poses immediate and serious risk to others or an immediate escape risk that alternatives cannot mitigate. If detention is strictly to effectuate removal, temporary housing prior to removal is limited to the shorter of the minimal time necessary or five days. Practically, case adjudicators and custody officials must document those individualized determinations and plan for alternatives to detention, while removal operations may need logistical changes to meet the five‑day cap.
Weekly review and release mechanics
Any person detained under the exception must receive individualized reviews at least weekly, and the review itself must be completed within 72 hours of initiation. Once DHS determines an individual no longer meets the detention exception, the statute requires release within 24 hours under safe‑release standards, including preparing and transferring complete medical records, medications, and contacting attorneys, sponsors, or service providers. This imposes strict timing obligations on custody staff, medical record units, and release coordinators to avoid statutory noncompliance.
Strict limitations on restraints and documentation duties
The statute bans restraints for pregnant, lactating, or postpartum detainees except in rare, documented extraordinary circumstances. It mandates use of the least restrictive restraint where any restraint is authorized, forbids specific devices and positions, and empowers medical staff to order immediate removal of restraints. Facilities must produce written findings within 5 days whenever restraints are used and retain the records for 5 years; ICE must maintain copies and both facility and ICE must make redacted records available for public inspection. Those documentation and public‑access hooks create accountability and a traceable paper trail for any deviation from the restraint ban.
Privacy, scope of medical care, and emergency arrangements
The bill limits nonmedical staff presence during intimate exams, labor, or delivery unless specifically requested by medical personnel, and then only under privacy‑protective conditions. It requires access to an explicit list of maternal and reproductive services in ICE custody—prenatal care, HIV testing/treatment, labor and delivery, substance‑use treatment, postpartum mental and physical health care, breastfeeding support, contraceptive continuation, and abortion services—and bars treatment without informed consent. Facility administrators must maintain arrangements with the nearest maternity hospitals and have contingency plans if transfer is infeasible; this imposes network and contractual obligations on facilities, especially remote or contract sites.
Notice, training, reporting, audits, and rulemaking
DHS must give detained individuals a rights notice in a language or manner they understand and must train relevant DHS employees at hiring and annually on the statute’s requirements. Facilities must submit quarterly reports with restraint incidents and pregnancy outcome metrics; DHS must audit those reports annually, publish a disaggregated summary to the listed congressional committees, and promulgate regulations setting minimum medical standards for pregnant detainees. These provisions create ongoing operational compliance work—data collection, redaction for privacy, audits, and a rulemaking process to convert statutory norms into enforceable agency standards.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pregnant, lactating, and postpartum noncitizens — they gain a statutory presumption of release, limits on restraint use, access to prenatal/postpartum care, and protections for privacy and informed consent.
- Immigration attorneys and advocates — clearer statutory duties, mandatory documentation of extraordinary detentions and restraint use, and regular public reporting create evidentiary pathways for oversight and advocacy.
- Community health providers and hospitals — statutory requirements for facility arrangements and emergency transfer protocols create more predictable referral relationships and access to patient records on release.
- Public interest organizations and oversight bodies — quarterly and annual reporting, retention of restraint‑use findings, and DHS rulemaking provide data streams for monitoring and policy work.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS components (ICE and CBP) — operational changes to intake, expanded medical services, case reviews, training, audits, and rulemaking will require staff time, logistics, and likely increased budget allocations.
- Detention facility administrators and private contractors — new documentation, quarterly reporting, record retention, and compliance with clinical and transport arrangements add administrative and contractual compliance costs.
- Detention officers and transport staff — restrictions on restraints and changes to transport protocols limit tactics previously permissible and require additional coordination with medical staff.
- Local hospitals and emergency medical providers — increased obligation to receive and treat transferred or released pregnant detainees and to coordinate with facilities and DHS under the required arrangements and informed‑consent rules.
- Records and IT units within facilities — systems changes to capture pregnancy testing at intake, maintain and redact records for public reporting, and support weekly review documentation impose technical and personnel burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting the health, dignity, and autonomy of pregnant and postpartum people in immigration custody and preserving the government’s ability to detain and remove noncitizens when public‑safety or removal‑related exigencies arise. The statute favors release and imposes strict limits on restraints and detention timing, but it grants DHS a vaguely defined "extraordinary circumstances" exception that will determine whether the bill meaningfully changes practice or simply relocates decision‑making to agency discretion.
The bill tilts institutional practice toward release, but the statutory language leaves several implementation questions unresolved. The "extraordinary circumstances" exception is fact‑dependent and uses terms like "immediate and serious risk" and "cannot be mitigated," which will force DHS to develop binding internal criteria and documentation templates through regulation or policy.
Absent sharp guidance, facilities may either over‑use detention to avoid release or over‑invoke the exception in high‑risk cases, producing inconsistent outcomes across sites.
Operationally, the timing mandates—72 hours to complete a review once initiated, release within 24 hours of a favorable determination, and a 5‑day cap on pre‑removal detention—are precise but demanding in remote or under‑resourced facilities. Ensuring access to the full range of reproductive services (including abortion), arranging emergency transfers to maternity hospitals, and assembling complete medical records for release will require contractual relationships, transport plans, and potentially new memoranda of understanding with local providers.
There is also an unresolved tension between the bill’s federal mandate to provide abortion services to people in DHS custody and state laws that restrict or criminalize certain abortions; DHS will face legal and logistical challenges operationalizing that mandate in jurisdictions with restrictive statutes.
The bill creates transparency and audit requirements but lacks an express private right of action or administrative enforcement mechanism against facilities or DHS for noncompliance. Reporting and public disclosure provisions produce oversight data, but absent specified remedies, enforcement will rely on congressional oversight, agency internal discipline, and potential litigation under existing constitutional or statutory doctrines — a more protracted path than immediate administrative penalties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.