PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 4, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10027 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10027 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10027 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10027 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create an online system for people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection to report medical neglect. Lawyers and family members could also file on their behalf. A contracted medical expert would review each complaint, and a finding of neglect would require the Homeland Security Secretary to ensure necessary medical treatment.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a publicly accessible, online platform that any individual detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection may use to submit a complaint alleging medical neglect at the covered facility in which such individual is being held.
(B) legal counsel filing on behalf of an individual described under subparagraph (A); or (C) a family member filing on behalf of an individual described under such subparagraph.
Any complaint submitted to the online platform established under this section shall be reviewed by a contracted medical expert to determine if the medical neglect alleged in the complaint occurred.
If a contracted medical expert determines medical neglect occurred after conducting a review pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure the individual who experienced such neglect in a covered facility receives necessary medical treatment.
The proposed law would be called the Stop ICE’s Medical Neglect Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Stop ICE’s Medical Neglect Act of 2026.
Covered facilities would include facilities holding noncitizens under immigration law, including facilities with competitively awarded detention contracts, facilities operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security, and additional spaces used for temporary detention lasting longer than four hours.
The term covered facility means a facility where noncitizens are being held by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to the immigration laws (as such term in defined under section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a))), including— (A) any facility that provides detention services under a competitive bid contract awarded by the Secretary of Homeland Security; (B) any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to hold or otherwise house noncitizens; and (C) any additional space that may be utilized for the purposes of temporarily detaining a noncitizen for a period longer than 4 hours.
Each complaint would have to identify the detained person, their alien registration number—the immigration identification number specified in the bill—the facility holding them, and the medical neglect they experienced there.
A complaint described under subsection (a) shall include the following information: (A) The name of the individual detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection who is being held in a covered facility. (B) The alien registration number of such individual. (C) The name of the covered facility in which such individual is being held. (D) A description of the medical neglect such individual experienced at such cover facility.
Complaints would be confidential and could not be shared without the consent of the person whose medical care is the subject of the complaint.
Any complaint submitted by an individual described under paragraph (1)— (A) shall be confidential; and (B) may not be shared without the consent of the individual who is the subject of such complaint.
If the medical expert found no neglect, the detained person, their lawyer, or a family member could appeal to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for further review.
If a contracted medical expert determines no medical neglect occurred after conducting a review pursuant to paragraph (1), an individual described under subsection (b)(1) may appeal such determination for further review to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security.
Individuals who may file a complaint described under subsection (a) include— (A) an individual detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection who is being held in a covered facility; (B) legal counsel filing on behalf of an individual described under subparagraph (A); or (C) a family member filing on behalf of an individual described under such subparagraph.
The Homeland Security Secretary would have to provide complaint status updates through the online platform.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide updates on the status of any complaint submitted under this section on the platform established under this section.
People held in covered facilities would be protected from retaliation or adverse treatment for filing complaints, communicating with lawyers, or corresponding with congressional offices about detention conditions or access to appropriate and timely medical care.
Any individual being held in a covered facility may not be subject to retaliation or adverse treatment for submitting a complaint pursuant to this section, communicating with legal counsel, or corresponding with Congressional offices with respect to— (1) the conditions of their detention in such covered facility; or (2) access to appropriate and timely medical care in such covered facility.
The Homeland Security Secretary would have to make language translation services available to anyone held in a covered facility.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure language translation services are made available to any individual being held in a covered facility.
Medical neglect would mean failure to provide timely access to necessary medical care or follow-up, continued treatment and medication, specialist referrals when medically indicated, medication management, or processes that identify shortcomings in care for illnesses, medical or mental health conditions, or physical injuries.
The term medical neglect means the failure to provide timely access to— (A) medically necessary care or follow-up; (B) continuity of treatment and medication; (C) specialty referrals when clinically indicated; (D) medication management; or (E) processes that identify deficiencies in patient care for any illness, medical or mental health condition, or physical injury.
Contracted medical experts would have to hold an active medical license in at least one state, have board certification in one of the listed medical specialties, meet other applicable state and federal requirements, and have certification or special training in detention medical care.
The term contracted medical expert means an academic, licensed, and board-certified medical clinician, academic, doctor, provider, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or mental health professional that— (A) maintains an active medical license in at least one State; (B) is board certified in family medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, or behavioral medicine; (C) is in compliance with any other applicable State and Federal requirements or certifications; (D) has certifications or special training related to providing medical care in a detention facility or setting;
Experts would also need detention medical experience, experience objectively evaluating other practitioners’ detention care, and experience recommending responses to complaint findings. The bill describes the required duration as “at least 5 to 10 years,” leaving the precise minimum unclear. Experts would need the ability to travel to any covered facility to provide care onsite or administer aid by video telehealth.
(E) has at least 5 to 10 years of experience providing medical care in a detention facility or setting; (F) has experience objectively critiquing the treatment provided by other medical practitioners in a detention facility or setting; (G) has experience formulating recommendations or other steps to address issues, violations or concerns identified as part of a complaint submitted to the platform established under this section; and (H) has the ability to travel to any covered facility to perform onsite medical care or administer aid through video telehealth conference call.
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 4, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees on August 3, 2026, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement on August 4, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-04T08:06:12Z.
2026-08-03: Introduced in House
2026-08-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
2026-08-04: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of absent earmark disclosures or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the stated criteria. Program coverage and access protections alone do not constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 4, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI