How does ICE define and report an 'in‑custody' death, and how have those reporting rules changed in recent years?
Executive summary
ICE defines an "in‑custody" death as the death of an individual while under ICE custody regardless of where the death occurs, and the agency has a formal directive laying out notification, review and reporting steps; congressional mandates enacted since 2018 have layered additional public-timing requirements on top of that policy but oversight and compliance have become contested issues in recent years (ICE Directive 11003.5; ICE Detainee Death Reporting) [1] [2] [3].
1. How ICE defines an "in‑custody" death
ICE’s own materials state that deaths of individuals in ICE custody are counted and reported “regardless of the location where the death occurred,” which includes federal and private detention facilities, hospitals, and offsite locations where the person remained under ICE responsibility (news releases and death-reporting guidance) [2] [3]. That operational definition traces back through ICE detention standards and older directives that require each facility to maintain procedures for notification when a detainee dies (PBNDS and Directive 4.7/7.9 references) [4] [2].
2. The agency’s formal reporting process and timelines
ICE’s Notification, Review, and Reporting Requirements for Detainee Deaths (Directive 11003.5) prescribes layered internal notifications—field office directors must report deaths up the chain (e.g., to Assistant Directors, JIC, OPLA) within a short window—and the agency posts a public news release with relevant details, typically within two business days according to ICE public guidance [1] [2]. Lawmakers’ language in the 2018 DHS appropriations cycle added statutory timing: ICE must make reports public within a set period (commonly cited as 90 days in ICE releases and congressional summaries), and some practitioner summaries and legal groups note related requirements for initial publication within 30 days and full reporting within 60 days depending on the statute and implementation guidance [5] [6] [7].
3. How the rules have changed in recent years
Since 2018 Congress required ICE to publicize in‑custody death reports (DHS Appropriations Act language), and ICE issued the 2021 Notification, Review, and Reporting Directive to codify specific notification and review steps internally [5] [2] [1]. In 2025 and 2026 reporting practice and enforcement of timelines became more contentious: local reporting and watchdog journalists cited a February 2025 expectation for immediate notifications and a 48‑hour public notice in some contexts, and subsequent press coverage documented missed deadlines and delays in releasing full death reports [8] [2]. Oversight offices—DHS OIG—also published reviews of deaths in custody (FY2021 review) that affected expectations about systemic investigation and disclosure [9].
4. Oversight, transparency, and conflicting narratives
Advocacy groups, medical researchers and congressional offices argue that ICE’s official definition and publication practice do not guarantee transparency or timely public accountability; reports from ACLU/Detention Watch Network describe cases pointing to medical neglect and delayed or piecemeal release of information, and researchers have relied on FOIA and cross‑referencing ICE news releases to assemble datasets because inspection and mortality reports were not always public without requests [10] [3]. Meanwhile ICE insists it follows policy and notifies consulates, next of kin, Congress and the public, pointing to its death‑report page and news releases [2] [6]. These two narratives reflect competing agendas: advocates press for stricter, real‑time transparency and independent oversight, while the agency emphasizes compliance with its directives and statutory language [10] [2].
5. Where the gaps remain and why they matter
Independent investigations and watchdog reporting have documented declines in inspections even as detention and death counts rose, raising questions about whether reporting rules—however formal—are being met in practice and whether internal mortality reviews are sufficient to identify systemic failures (Project On Government Oversight analysis; DHS OIG review) [11] [9]. Other critics point to practices—such as releases shortly before death or delayed public reports—that can complicate counting and transparency, claims that have been raised in public databases and litigation but are not uniformly settled by public records (Wikipedia summary and advocacy reporting) [12] [10]. Public reporting requirements exist on paper, but reporting behavior, enforcement and independent verification remain contested.