Are zip ties legally permitted for restraining children under U.S. federal detention policies?
Executive summary
Federal detention policies do not contain a single, explicit federal ban that universally forbids law enforcement or immigration agents from using zip-tie style disposable restraints on children; ICE’s 2025 National Detention Standards require facilities to have policies on restraint and safeguard detainees [1][2]. Reporting and advocacy groups document multiple incidents and disputes over whether children were physically restrained with zip ties during enforcement actions, and federal agencies including DHS and FBI have sometimes denied or qualified such reports [3][4][5].
1. What the rules say — written standards, not a clear ban
ICE’s National Detention Standards and the broader detention-management framework require facilities to maintain policies and procedures to account for and safeguard detainees and to comply with applicable detention standards [1][6]. The 2025 NDS were updated in June 2025 and focus on operational alignment and protections, but the publicly described materials do not provide a single, plain-text federal prohibition specifically naming “zip ties” as unlawful for use on minors [2][1]. Available sources do not mention a standalone federal statutory ban on zip-tie restraints for children.
2. Practice on the ground — disposable restraints are a known tool
Disposable plastic restraints — often marketed and described as “zip tie” handcuffs or PlastiCuffs — are standard equipment in many law-enforcement toolkits and are sold to police and federal contractors [7][8][9]. Industry and product descriptions say these devices “meet standards for law enforcement & military” and are used as temporary restraints, an accepted alternative to metal handcuffs in many operations [8][7]. That market presence shows the tactic exists; it does not, by itself, establish legality or policy limits on use with children.
3. Reported incidents — contested facts and agency pushback
Multiple high-profile news reports and local investigations document allegations that children were restrained with zip ties in immigration raids or courthouse arrests; advocates and eyewitnesses have said children were zip-tied, while DHS and other federal spokespeople have at times denied or qualified those accounts [3][10][5]. Newsweek reported denials from DHS about a San Antonio courthouse incident even as attorneys and advocates raised alarm [3]. Local outlets and state officials have responded differently — for example, Illinois authorities moved to evaluate treatment after reports tied to a Chicago raid [11] — underscoring conflicting narratives in the public record.
4. Legal and child-protection frameworks — state, agency and facility limits
State-level child-protection guidance and facility rules often ban dangerous restraints and mechanical restraints in settings caring for children; a New Hampshire advocacy group summary notes that mechanical restraints like zip-ties, handcuffs and straps are not allowed in certain child-serving facilities and that dangerous restraint techniques are illegal under those policies [12]. That demonstrates that legality and permissibility can depend on the context (juvenile facility, hospital, court handling of minors) and applicable state or facility rules rather than a single federal criminal statute cited in the provided sources.
5. Where reporting, policy and practice collide — room for agency discretion
ICE and DHS detention-management materials emphasize oversight and compliance reviews of facilities and contracts [6]. Those oversight regimes create a framework for imposing standards at contracted facilities, but the sources show oversight is operational rather than an explicit criminal prohibition on a particular restraint tool [6][1]. Media investigations, state actions, and advocacy litigation indicate that where agencies or contractors used zip-tie restraints on minors, the episodes triggered public scrutiny, denials, and sometimes state inquiries — showing enforcement and accountability occur via review, litigation and political pressure rather than a single statutory line in the sources provided [3][5][11].
6. Competing viewpoints — safety, efficiency, human-rights concerns
Law-enforcement suppliers and some tactical guides frame disposable restraints as practical, hygienic and effective for temporary control [8][7]. Civil-rights advocates, child-welfare groups and journalists frame the use of zip ties on children as potentially traumatic, unlawful in certain settings, and evidence of excessive or inappropriate force; their accounts have prompted local probes and legal challenges [12][13][10]. Federal agencies’ denials or qualifications in reporting show institutional interest in defending officers and operations while critics emphasize the rights and safety of minors [3][5].
7. Bottom line and what’s not in the record
Available sources do not cite a single, explicit federal statute or ICE rule that says zip ties are categorically prohibited for restraining children; instead, the record shows agency detention standards, state child-protection rules, product availability, contested incident reporting, and oversight mechanisms that together shape practice [1][2][12][8]. If you need a definitive legal ruling about a specific incident or jurisdiction, available sources do not mention that determination; local statutes, facility policies and case-by-case investigations determine whether an instance was lawful or actionable [5][11].