Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Deaths in Custody Reporting Reform Act
A Democratic bill with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill amends the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 to require the submission of specific reports to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It establishes clear purposes for improving the reporting, data collection, and understanding of deaths that occur in various forms of custody. The legislation mandates studies, annual reporting, public databases, and a review panel to oversee compliance and examine ways to prevent custody-related deaths. Additionally, it sets specific requirements for immigration enforcement agencies regarding death disclosures and investigations. Finally, it provides authorization of appropriations of six million dollars for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2037 to carry out sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Act.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The legislation mandates searchable public databases, annual reports, and strict disclosure timelines for deaths in custody.
- Scored +5
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Section 9 establishes rigorous 48-hour death disclosure, investigation, and reporting requirements specifically for immigration detention facilities.
- Scored +5
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill mandates comprehensive reporting, public databases, and review panels for deaths occurring during arrests, detentions, and in custody.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 adds Section 6(b), which requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to make a searchable, machine-readable database of deaths in custody available on a publicly accessible website. This is positive because it provides transparency to the American people regarding how and why individuals die while in custody.
-
Section 2 adds Section 7, which establishes a review panel that includes family members of individuals who died in custody and formerly incarcerated individuals, and requires the panel to hold annual public hearings. This provides a direct avenue for the public and affected families to voice concerns and hold officials accountable.
-
Section 2 adds Section 9(a), which requires the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to publish a notice of a covered death on a website and submit it to Congress not later than 48 hours after it occurs. This ensures prompt public disclosure and oversight when a death happens in immigration custody.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2 amends Section 3(c)(3) to allow states that fail to comply with reporting requirements to dedicate reallocated funds to assist themselves in complying with the reporting rules. This might be seen as a negative burden because it redirects funds away from other potential state programs to fix reporting failures instead of penalizing non-compliant state agencies directly.
-
Section 2 adds Section 7(c)(1)(E), which grants the review panel subpoena authority to require attendance, testimony, and the production of evidence. While intended for oversight, individuals or entities required to comply with these subpoenas may face significant administrative burdens or legal expenses related to enforcement actions brought in United States district courts.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Section 9 establishes rigorous 48-hour death disclosure, investigation, and reporting requirements specifically for immigration detention facilities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improved data collection on deaths in custody sheds light on systemic disparities affecting African Americans. Would children be better off under this? — The bill explicitly covers juvenile detention facilities and young individuals within custody reporting frameworks. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Mandatory reporting and death reviews for immigration detention facilities directly protect Hispanic Americans and immigrant populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice and detention systems and benefit from increased oversight. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Mandatory reporting on psychiatric conditions, medical care, and medical releases protects individuals with physical and mental disabilities in custody. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Enhanced tracking of medical conditions, medical paroles, and deaths in custody benefits older individuals prone to health issues in carceral settings.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation mandates searchable public databases, annual reports, and strict disclosure timelines for deaths in custody. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Enhanced oversight and investigation requirements for custodial and immigration deaths protect accountability and due process principles. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal reporting requirements, studies, and review panel oversight over state and local custodial facilities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill mandates comprehensive reporting, public databases, and review panels for deaths occurring during arrests, detentions, and in custody. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — By improving transparency and data collection regarding deaths in custody, the bill helps expose and address racial disparities in the justice and detention systems. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The legislation requires reporting on deaths involving medical and psychiatric conditions, aiding individuals with disabilities in carceral settings.
- 10/26/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Sydney Kamlager-DoveDemocrat · California
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Robert ScottDemocrat · Virginia
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey