What documented hunger strikes and detention protests occurred in U.S. immigration facilities from 2010 to 2016, and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Between 2010 and 2016, hunger strikes and coordinated protests by people held in U.S. immigration detention centers were widespread, with NGO and FOIA-based reporting documenting hundreds to over a thousand participants across dozens of facilities [1] [2]. These protests produced mixed, mostly limited outcomes: local responses ranged from lockdowns, transfers and punitive isolation to occasional court interventions and administrative reviews, but no comprehensive systemic reform tied directly to the strikes emerged in that period [3] [4] [2].
1. Scale and documentation: how many and where
Independent compilations and FOIA-driven research show hunger strikes intensified in the mid-2010s — the ACLU and Physicians for Human Rights reported at least 1,378 hunger strikers across 62 detention centers from 2013–2017, while volunteer tallies by Freedom for Immigrants documented roughly 1,396–1,600 strikes across dozens of facilities beginning in 2015 [1] [2] [5] [6].
2. Notable incidents between 2010 and 2016
High-profile outbreaks cited in contemporaneous reporting included coordinated refusals to eat at the El Paso Processing Center in 2016 and related protests spreading to other facilities, hunger strikes at Stewart Detention Center in Georgia in April 2016, and linked actions at Northwest Detention Center (Tacoma) and Joe Corley Detention Center in Texas in 2016, among others [3] [7]. Coverage of regional clusters — for example significant actions in Louisiana and at processing centers along the Southwest — consistently appears in NGO and press accounts from 2015–2016 [2] [8].
3. What detainees demanded and why they struck
Detainees framed strikes as last-resort protest against prolonged detention, poor medical care, inadequate access to lawyers, abusive conditions and denials of parole or bond, grievances repeatedly documented by Human Rights Watch, PHR/ACLU interviews, and other reporting [9] [10] [11]. Reports emphasize that hunger strikes were often a response to the absence of other remedies inside facilities and the wider immigration system’s scarcity of relief such as bond or parole [10] [11].
4. ICE and facility responses: coercion, medical policy, and court involvement
ICE and private contractors frequently responded with lockdowns, transfers, isolation and punitive measures, and medical monitoring consistent with ICE detention standards; NGOs documented coercive tactics including meetings with religious leaders and threats to separate families as part of efforts to break strikes [3] [4] [9]. There were instances where courts were asked to authorize restraint and force-feeding; a federal judge in 2017 refused to allow ICE to restrain and force-feed a hunger-striking detainee in Arizona, illustrating contested legal terrain around involuntary feeding [2] [4].
5. Immediate outcomes: relief, retaliation, and administrative reviews
Immediate on-the-ground outcomes varied: some strikes resulted in temporary concessions, some ended after medical intervention or transfers, and some participants faced retaliation such as solitary confinement or loss of privileges; the Department of Homeland Security initiated at least one review of privately operated facilities after 2016 disturbances, but NGOs characterize broader accountability as limited [3] [4] [9]. FOIA-based ACLU/PHR analysis later catalogued patterns of retaliation and coercion across the period rather than a consistent pattern of remedial policy change [4] [1].
6. Broader significance and continuing gaps in accountability
The wave of strikes between roughly 2013 and 2016 fed NGO and legal scrutiny that later produced reports documenting scale and abusive responses, yet reporting indicates the strikes did not yield sweeping systemic reform by 2016; instead they produced episodic legal fights, administrative reviews, and ongoing NGO monitoring [1] [4] [3]. Sources reviewed here document the strikes, ICE responses including at least one litigated force-feeding issue in 2016–2017, and subsequent NGO calls for independent monitoring, but do not show a singular policy overhaul tied directly to the protests within that six‑year window [2] [4] [9].