Old senior man looking for help in a Charitable Foundation
By IHPL - July 15, 2026

Immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) retain legally protected rights to necessary health care even while in custody.1 An important point of distinction is that ICE detention is technically civil, not criminal, in nature.2 But detention of a person nonetheless places that individual in government custody and prevents them from obtaining outside treatment. For that reason, constitutional due process, ICE detention standards, disability law, and federal court oversight all impose duties on the government to provide medical, dental, and mental health care.3

The constitutional starting point is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court held that detained people may not be subjected to conditions amounting to punishment before adjudication.4 Restrictions must be reasonably related to legitimate governmental purposes, not arbitrary or punitive.5 Although Bell involved pretrial criminal detention, its anti-punishment principle is especially relevant to immigration detention because immigration detainees are civil detainees, not people serving criminal sentences.6

In medical-care cases, courts often ask whether detention officials acted with deliberate indifference, or, in some contexts, whether their conduct was objectively unreasonable.7 Either way, the government may not knowingly ignore serious medical needs. Serious medical needs include untreated chronic illness, pregnancy complications, infectious disease, severe pain, mental health crisis, disability-related needs, medication withdrawal, or symptoms suggesting life-threatening disease.8 The right is not limited to emergency-room treatment after a crisis occurs; it includes timely screening, medication continuity, follow-up care, specialty referrals, and adequate mental-health services.9

ICE’s own detention standards reinforce these obligations. ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards require each detainee to receive comprehensive medical, dental, and mental-health intake screening as soon as possible, and no later than twelve hours after arrival.10 ICE’s National Detention Standards also require newly admitted detainees, including transfers, to receive documented medical, dental, and mental-health screening upon intake and a broader health appraisal within fourteen days. These standards are not always independently enforceable by detainees, but they are important evidence of what ICE itself recognizes as minimally necessary custodial care.11

Disability law adds another layer. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination in federally conducted or funded programs.12 In detention, that can require reasonable accommodations such as sign-language interpretation, mobility devices, accessible housing, effective communication, and modifications to policies that otherwise deny disabled detainees equal access to medical care, legal services, religious services, or daily activities.13

Recent cases illustrate how these rights are litigated. In Gomez Ruiz, et al. v. ICE, filed in November 2025, seven detained immigrants sued ICE and DHS over conditions at the California City Detention Facility.14 The lawsuit alleges constitutionally inadequate medical and mental-health care, punitive conditions, denial of disability accommodations, and interference with legal access. The complaint describes detainees allegedly denied insulin, cancer-related diagnostic care, heart medication, wound care, and disability accommodations. In February 2026, a federal court granted preliminary relief in part, ordering adequate healthcare staffing, documented medical intake screening within twelve hours, and access to an independent monitor. This case shows how medical neglect may be framed simultaneously as a Fifth Amendment violation and a Rehabilitation Act violation.

A second recent example is L.T. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed in January 2026 concerning the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.15 The complaint alleges inhumane conditions, lack of proper medical care, and denial of disability accommodations at one of the country’s largest immigration detention centers. Adelanto has also drawn renewed scrutiny after the March 2026 death of José Guadalupe Ramos, a Mexican national with diabetes and hypertension who died after being found unresponsive in custody.16 While a death in custody does not by itself prove legal liability, it underscores why timely screening, chronic-disease management, and emergency response are legally significant.

In practical terms, detainees seeking care can use sick-call procedures, file grievances, request medical records, document symptoms and delays, and contact counsel when possible. Potential remedies may include emergency injunctive relief, such as seeking a court order demanding they receive treatment; Rehabilitation Act claims demanding redress of violations of disability law; Federal Tort Claims Act claims wherein an individual files a civil suit against the government; or constitutional litigation alleging civil rights violations. However, all of these options may prove challenging to exercise when detained with limited means of communication and a limited or non-existent budget for legal representation.

The basic principle is straightforward: when the government detains immigrants, it assumes responsibility for their health and safety. Denying necessary care is not merely poor administration; it may be unconstitutional punishment, disability discrimination, or both.

Author bio:

Portrait Whitny M. Braun de Lobaton, PhD

Whitny M. Braun de Lobaton, PhD
Dr. Whitny Braun de Lobatón is the Director of the Master in Bioethics and also serves as the associate director for the LLU Center for Bioethics. She is an Associate Professor of Ethics in the School of Religion, teaching courses in ethics, law and healthcare for all eight schools at the university. Her past research has focused on theological, legal and ethical policy approaches to end-of-life care but in recent years she has transitioned her focus to examining the diverse legal, ethical and theological mosaic that is human reproductive policy, specifically in-vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic testing in both domestic and international contexts.

References:

  1. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care § V, at 263 (rev. 2016).
  2. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
  3. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2018); U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care § I (rev. 2016); U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.8, Disability Identification, Assessment, and Accommodation § II (rev. 2016); Fraihat v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 16 F.4th 613, 621–22 (9th Cir. 2021).
  4. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
  5. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979).
  6. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003).
  7. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2018).
  8. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2018); U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care § II (rev. 2016).
  9. See U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care § II, at 257–58 (rev. Dec. 2016) (requiring access to a continuum of health-care services, daily access to health-service requests with timely follow-up, continuity of care, timely transfer or referral for care beyond facility resources, treatment plans for close/chronic/convalescent supervision, 24-hour emergency medical and mental-health services, chronic-care treatment, and comprehensive medical, dental, and mental-health intake screening); id. § V.U, at 272–73 (requiring prescribed medications and medically necessary treatments to be provided on schedule and without interruption); id. § V.Z, at 275–76 (requiring continuity-of-care planning and medication supply upon transfer, removal, or release).
  10. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care, § V.J, at 275 (rev. 2016).
  11. See U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.3, Medical Care § V.J, at 266–68 (rev. Dec. 2016) (requiring comprehensive medical, dental, and mental-health intake screening for each detainee, including those transferred from another facility, as soon as possible and no later than twelve hours after arrival); id. § V.M, at 268 (requiring a comprehensive health appraisal for each detainee within fourteen days of arrival); Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary, Analysis of S.B. 1289, 2015–2016 Reg. Sess., at 18 (Cal. June 28, 2016) (stating that PBNDS standards are "not legally binding" and lack a mechanism to ensure compliance at all facilities).
  12. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
  13. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011, Standard 4.8, Disability Identification, Assessment, and Accommodation §§ II, V.E–F (rev. Dec. 2016); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 6 C.F.R. pt. 15.
  14. Gomez Ruiz v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, No. 3:25-cv-09757, Compl. at 1–2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025).
  15. L.T. v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, No. 5:26-cv-00322 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 26, 2026).
  16. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Criminal Illegal Alien Passes Away in ICE Custody (Mar. 30, 2026) (reporting that José Guadalupe Ramos-Solano, a Mexican national detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, was found "unconscious and unresponsive in his bunk" on March 25, 2026, later pronounced dead, and had medical issues including diabetes and hypertension); U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, Detainee Death Report: Ramos Solano, Jose Guadalupe 1–2 (2026) (same); Brittny Mejia & Ruben Vives, As Fourth Man Dies at Adelanto ICE Detention Center, Mexican Officials Call for Investigation, L.A. Times (Mar. 30, 2026) (reporting that Ramos-Solano's death intensified scrutiny of Adelanto and prompted Mexican officials to call for investigation).