Human Rights Violations in US Detention Facilities: A Turning Point
Human rights are positioned as a moral compass. Thus, when a state alleges it is abiding by the law, the compass must be oriented towards security and dignity.
Immigration detention in the United States (US), whether operated by the government, county or private operators, establishes legal obligations under both US domestic law and applicable international human rights frameworks. The two become entwined when detention conditions and benchmarks fall short of minimum standards of humane treatment under international law. The implication is a familiar conundrum where a country that advocates for the rule of law on an international level can, within its jurisdiction, permit practices that fall short of legal obligations. This analysis examines how the US detention system enables inhumane treatment and violations of human rights.
Legal Framework: When the US Detention System Contravenes Binding Obligations
Internationally, the detention process is presented as a legally binding human rights obligation. Following this, the US is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified in 1992 (ACLU, 2013) and the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), ratified on 21 October 1994 (EveryCRSReport.com, 2004).
The ICCPR acts as a treaty obligation of the US. As per the Supremacy Clause (US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2), treaties can hold the status of supreme law of the land. However, the binding nature of certain provisions in the US judicial system may depend on whether they are automatic or executed by Congress (Federal Judicial Center, n.d.; US Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Nonetheless, the US is obligated to adhere to and implement measures in accordance with domestic legislation, including the right to due process in the case of detention. In effect, that implies government authorities must adhere to legal procedures required to safeguard affirmed ICCPR provisions and offer a solution when the rights are infringed upon (ACLU, 2013). Moreover, CAT compels parties to the agreement to adopt measures to outlaw inhumane treatment within their jurisdiction. Based thereon, US commitments should be implemented in accordance with domestic legal provisions. CAT regulations therefore shape immigration enforcement, including detention decisions, by influencing when the government ought to refrain from or suspend deportation as it would amount to a violation of CAT commitments (EveryCRSReport.com, 2004).
The ICCPR is a sine qua non in dictating that detainees shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity prescribed by Article 10(1). They should therefore not be subjected to any kind of abuse, severe neglect, or treatment that deprives them of human dignity in reference to Article 7 (OHCHR, 1966). Nevertheless, survivors in US detention have disclosed being exposed to physical, verbal, and sexual abuse (Dholakia, 2025). For instance, 58% of detained women in US facilities report sexual violence risk, while 47% of detainees reported verbal abuse by staff in 2023 (Andersen, 2026). Furthermore, medical neglect has also resulted in avoidable deaths (Dholakia, 2025), thus violating the obligation under Article 10(1).
In addition, CAT prohibits torture as well as cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment, even when it fails to meet the strict threshold of what constitutes legally as torture, for it can be prohibited due to its cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment based on severity and the conditions presented (OHCHR, 1984). In the case of US detention, thousands have been subjected to solitary confinement where they are confined in cramped cells for prolonged periods (Dholakia, 2025). For instance, it was reported that as many as 27 women were crammed in a small holding cell, slept on a concrete floor and were limited to a single three-minute shower during three or four days in detention (Villagran, 2025). In addition, immigrant women reported being held in restraints for hours on a prison bus with no food, toilet, or water access, with guards instructing them to urinate on the floor (Dholakia, 2025; Villagran, 2025), thereby violating the aforementioned prohibition.
An Analysis of the American Detention System (2009-2026)
Detention in modern times can be construed as a complex pattern affecting not just detainees but all the vast network of concerned actors, for instance families, human rights organisations, legal institutions as well as communities. Detention facilities are expected to comply with governmental regulations and, as a matter of law, shape decisions and institutional practice. However, the point of contention is whether the administrative process is aimed at humane treatment and due process, or if due process is considered the sine qua non for detention.
In 2009, under the Obama administration (2009-2017), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) documented that many men, women and children in US detention facilities were detained in substandard conditions, and their rights to due process often remained compromised (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009). The report thus exposed roadblocks including the right to counsel and the lack of executable detention benchmarks. Notwithstanding the subsequent hardline stance, detention seemed to drift into a space where constitutional provisions were not readily available and where rights existed more on paper as opposed to their implementation on the ground.
In 2018, under Trump’s administration (2017-2021; 2025-present), specifically his first term, the zero tolerance policy was introduced. The policy focused on immigration enforcement at the US-Mexico border and called for the prosecution of all adults who gained improper entry into the US (Human Rights Watch, 2024). Although irregular entry and reentry were the most prosecuted crimes in the US prior to the policy, the focus was never on parents who were accompanied by their children. However, with the zero tolerance policy, parents facing charges were held by the US Marshals Service while their children stayed in US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention (Human Rights Watch, 2024). The forced separation of children from their families caused serious harm. For one, they felt abandoned, experienced anxiety, loss of trust, nightmares, and regression in developmental stages while parents remained distraught. According to two doctors who acted as experts for the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the policy constituted “an act of state-sponsored child abuse” (Human Rights Watch, 2024; Allen & McPherson, 2018).
Biden’s administration (2021-2025) however, rolled back some of Trump’s first-term border control operations. For instance, he quashed Trump’s travel ban proclamations in 2021 (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2024) and shifted from the family separation (zero tolerance) modus operandi (Ainsley & Soboroff, 2021). Despite that, reforms that lack integral procedural safeguards continue to generate detention-based human rights violations. For instance, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) 2025 report, following the end of Biden’s term, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention numbers were at their highest level, with 39,703 adults being detained in over 100 facilities across the country (TRAC Reports, 2025).
Furthermore, Human Rights Watch has documented prevalent violations at detention centers under ICE custody. A 2026 investigation documented abuse at Fort Bliss detention center. HRW describes assault, medical negligence, and systemic failures to address fundamental safety requirements and detainee grievances (Human Rights Watch, 2026). Amnesty International equally reported dire conditions at Florida immigration detention centres, including Everglades Detention Facility (Alligator Alcatraz) as well as Krome. Amnesty documented deplorable conditions, substandard care, restrictive and punitive detention measures, including matters alluding to conduct that may constitute torture under certain conditions (Amnesty International, 2025).
In each administration, oversight entities and critics have singled out similar fault lines such as due legal process, legal requirements linked to medical attention and humane conditions, as well as international standards that ensure detained persons are protected from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Although the government changes hands, the human rights dimensions in US detention facilities remain the same.
Food for Thought
The law is like a lamp, but the same lamp can be obscured in cases where the room is shadowed by national security. The concern is more pronounced in the US detention system where men, women and children are held in appalling conditions with their rights to due process remaining compromised on numerous occasions. Whereas detention intersects with constitutional rights and legal obligations regulating humane conditions and appropriate medical care, the outcome is a legal-moral conflict. A conflict that circles back to the same question: “When the government invokes national security and public safety as justifications for increased detention, is it still subject to shared human values?
Bibliography
Ainsley, J., & Soboroff, J. (2021, January 26). Biden Justice Department officially rescinds Trump “zero tolerance” migrant family separation policy. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-justice-department-officially-rescinds-trump-zero-tolerance-migrant-family-n1255762
Allen, D. S., & McPherson, D. P. (2018). Doctors congressional disclosure SWC [PDF]. U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (Ron Wyden). Doctors congressional disclosure SWC [PDF]. U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (Ron Wyden). https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Doctors%20Congressional%20Disclosure%20SWC.pdf
American Civil Liberties Union. (2009, July 29). Human Rights Body Criticizes U.S. Immigration Detention System. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/human-rights-body-criticizes-us-immigration-detention-system
American Civil Liberties Union. (2013, July 11). FAQ: The Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr
Amnesty International. (2025, December 4). USA: New Findings Reveal Human Rights Violations at Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” and Krome Detention Centers. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/estados-unidos-nuevas-investigaciones-revelan-violaciones-de-derechos-humanos-en-los-centros-de-detencion-de-alligator-alcatraz-y-krome-en-florida/
Andersen, S. (2026, February 12). Immigration Detention Statistics. Worldmetrics. https://worldmetrics.org/immigration-detention-statistics/
Biesecker, M. (2026, July 15). Report: Detainees at ICE facility in Texas report frequent beatings and other human rights abuses. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/report-detainees-at-ice-facility-in-texas-report-frequent-beatings-and-other-human-rights-abuses
Dholakia, N. (2025, June 11). The Truth About Immigration Detention in the United States. https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-immigration-detention-in-the-united-states
Congressional Research Service. (2004, March 11; revised 2009, January 21). The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens (CRS Report No. RL32276). EveryCRSReport.com. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32276.html#fn21
Federal Judicial Center. (n.d.). Foreign Treaties in the Federal Courts. https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/foreign-treaties-in-federal-courts
Human Rights Watch. (2024, December 16). “We Need to Take Away Children”: Zero accountability six years after “zero tolerance”. https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/16/we-need-take-away-children/zero-accountability-six-years-after-zero-tolerance
Human Rights Watch. (2026, July 15). You’re only getting out deported or dead”: Abusive US immigration detention at Ft. Bliss. https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/07/15/youre-only-getting-out-deported-or-dead/abusive-us-immigration-detention-at-ft
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2009, July 28). Press release 53/09: IACHR visits U.S. immigration detention facilities. Organization of American States. https://cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/53-09eng.htm
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2024, December 26). BArchive: First Trump Administration Travel Bans. https://www.nafsa.org/professional-resources/browse-by-interest/executive-order-travel-ban-nafsa-resources
United Nations. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
United Nations. (1984, December 10). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (General Assembly resolution 39/46). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). (2025, February 21). Immigration Detention Statistics: A Retrospective and a Look Forward. https://tracreports.org/reports/753/
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Supremacy Clause: Current Doctrine (U.S. Constitution Annotated). https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-6/clause-2/supremacy-clause-current-doctrine
Villagran, L. (2025, March 23). Immigrant women describe “hell on earth” in ICE detention. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/03/23/immigrant-women-hell-on-earth-trump-ice-detention/82029368007/
