The black box within a black box: Solitary confinement practices in a subset of U.S. immigrant detention facilities


In September 2013, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a directive regarding the use of solitary confinement for ICE detainees. Among other provisions, the directive mandated reporting on the rationale behind decisions to place a detainee into solitary confinement, with particular emphases on placements lasting more than 14 days and for reasons related to illness and other “special vulnerabilities.” This paper analyzes administrative data from ICE, gathered via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, on the use of solitary confinement per the 2013 ICE directive. The FOIA request covers 1193 incidents of solitary confinement from the beginning of the directive (September 2013) through the date of the FOIA request (September 2016), across six facilities under the jurisdiction of two California Field Offices (Los Angeles and San Francisco). Results reveal significant differences in the use of solitary confinement by gender, mental illness status, whether the confined individual had an attorney, Field Office jurisdiction, and individual facility. In addition, we document the extensive use of solitary confinement for “protective custody” and show that this category is potentially punitive in nature. Given the limited nature of access to information on ICE detainees, this is one of the only analyses of solitary confinement in immigrant detention facilities in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    Though ICE uses “segregation” to describe its solitary confinement practices, we rely on the more commonly used term, “solitary confinement.”

  2. 2.

    According to the ICE directive, “Detainees with special vulnerabilities include those who are known to be suffering from mental illness or serious medical illness; who have a disability or are elderly, pregnant, or nursing; who would be susceptible to harm in general population due in part to their sexual orientation or gender identity; or who have been victims -in or out of ICE custody-of sexual assault, torture, trafficking, or abuse.”

  3. 3.

    Appendix 2 describes all variables provided in ICE’s report.

  4. 4.

    In contradiction to decades of research on the mental health impacts of solitary confinement, one 2011 report by O’Keefe et al. finds that prisoners in administrative segregation suffered no more psychological deterioration than those in the general prison population. However, experts have found serious methodological errors in the O’Keefe report (Grassian and Kupers 2011; Lovell and Toch 2011) and prison advocacy groups object to the study’s moral and legal implications (American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado 2010; Ridgeway and Casella 2010).

  5. 5.

    According to ICE, “Administrative segregation is a non-punitive form of separation from the general population for administrative reasons. Administrative segregation is authorized only as necessary to ensure the safety of the detainee, facility staff, and other detainees; the protection of property; or the security or good order of the facility, and therefore should be for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions practicable, consistent with the rationale for placement.” In contrast, ICE defines disciplinary segregation as “a punitive form of separation from the general population for disciplinary reasons. Disciplinary segregation is authorized only pursuant to the order of a facility disciplinary panel, following a hearing in which the detainee is determined to have committed serious misconduct in violation of a facility rule, and only consistent with the Disciplinary Severity Scale from the applicable ICE detention standards, and only when alternative dispositions would inadequately regulate detainee behaviour.” (See “11065.1: Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees,” Issued September 4, 2013, Federal Enterprise Architecture Number: 306-112-002b. Available at:, Accessed September 7, 2017).

  6. 6.

    While no facility provides complete information on all three descriptive variables: Adelanto includes information for all three variables in 30% of cases, followed by Santa Ana Jail with 25%, Yuba County Jail with 22%, Theo Lacy Facility with 14%, and Sacramento County Jail-Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center with only 7%. In addition, some cases include very limited content (the first example below), while others are more detailed (the second example below). The first example provides no information beyond a relatively non-descriptive placement reason. In the second example, ICE implies a deterioration in mental health over time. A lack of certain types of description in some cases and not others does not necessarily indicate an absence of circumstances and could instead be due to differences in reporting practices by facilities or individual officers. We therefore interpret textual data analysis as descriptive rather than representative.

    Example 1: “Placed in AD SEG, because of Northern hispanic [sic] tattoos”

    Example 2: “On December 15, 2015, [name redacted] was released from medical observation and returned to administrative segregation under facility initiated protect custody due to his continued sexual behavior with other detainees. On December 29, 2015, ADF Compliance Unit completed 14 day review for [name redacted]. On January 14, 2016, ADF Compliance Unit completed 30 day review for [name redacted]. [name redacted] remains in facility initiated protective custody due to his continued display of disruptive and inappropriate behavior towards other detainees. Alternative housing options are currently being explored for [name redacted] including alternative facilities that may better suit the detainee's housing needs. On January 24, 2016, was transferred from segregation to medical holding for suicide watch.”

  7. 7.

    We note that the spreadsheet contained no information about the types of cases that constitute “other.” Given the difficulty in defining this outcome category, as well as the fact that it contained only eight cases, we opted to drop it from our bivariate and multivariate analyses. We also note the possibility that the reason for entry into solitary confinement could be different from the reason for continued placement. However, ICE provided only one placement reason per case (though a small minority of descriptive text entries reveal multiple reasons); we are therefore unable to systematically assess the characteristics of cases involving separate entry and continued placement.

  8. 8.

    We opt to include only cases for which we have full information available to calculate length of confinement. We note that our multivariate results do not change substantively when all missing cases are assigned a release date of October 18, 2016, which is the latest release date reported in any case in the ICE spreadsheet.

  9. 9.

    Santa Ana Jail in particular has a separate, segregated housing area for transgender detainees. It appears this type of segregation is not categorized as solitary confinement per ICE’s report, as only three cases in the dataset (two in Santa Ana Jail and one in Yuba County Jail) are specified as “Protective Custody: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT).”

  10. 10.

    Although ICE also provided information on cases involving individuals with serious illnesses and serious disabilities, these cases were very uncommon (only 18 in total) and all but three involved an individual who also had mental illness. We are therefore only able to examine mental illness in our analyses.

  11. 11.

    It is unclear whether data are missing at random or for some other reason. However, given the theoretical and empirical importance of attorney status, we include this variable in our multivariate analysis. Substantive results deviate in small but non-trivial ways when the attorney variable is not included. Results from models without the attorney variable are available from the authors upon request.

  12. 12.

    One other facility, California Correctional Facility (CCF), contained only 5 cases and was therefore excluded from further analyses. However, the lack of cases at CCF may also be substantively interesting, as it suggests the possibility that some facilities may use solitary confinement more frequently than others. Indeed, many facilities that house detainees in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Field Office jurisdictions did not appear in the dataset at all. However, without more information about the entire population of detained individuals in the AORs, we are unable to evaluate this possibility.

  13. 13.

    As of 2017, Adelanto has the capacity to hold 2000 men and women; it is estimated that 73,000 detainees have been held in the facility since it opened in 2011 (Esquivel 2017).

  14. 14.

    We began by estimating a Cox Proportional Hazards models, but found that control variables for mental illness and individual facilities violated the proportional hazards assumption, indicating that the distribution of different categories of these variables are not proportional across the variable for confinement length. We therefore opted to use a series of logistic regression models.


  1. American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. (2010). ACLU and experts slam findings of DOC report on solitary confinement. November 29, 2010.

  2. Association, A. (Ed.). (2011). ABA standards for criminal justice: Treatment of prisoners (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standards Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Association of State Correctional Administrators, and The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School. (2016). Aiming to reduce time-in-cell: Reports from correctional systems on the numbers of prisoners in restricted housing and on the potential of policy changes to bring about reforms.

  4. Brodsky, S., & Scogin, F. (1988). Inmates in protective custody: First data on emotional effects. Forensic Reports, 1(December), 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Browne, A., Hastings, A., Kall, K., & DiZerega, M. (2015). Keeping vulnerable populations safe under PREA: Alternative strategies to the use of segregation in prisons and jails. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eagly, I., & Shafer, S. (2015). A national study of access to counsel in immigration court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eisen, L.-B. (2017). Private prisons lock up thousands of Americans with almost no oversight. New York, NY: The Brennan Center for Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Esquivel, P. (2017). ‘We Don’t Feel OK Here’: Detainee deaths, suicide attempts and hunger strikes plague California immigration facility. Los Angeles Times, August 8, 2017.

  9. Fialho, C. (2018). FOIA request data on average daily detained population, March 2, 2018.

  10. Foster, D., Davis, D., & Sandler, D. (1987). Detention torture South Africa psychological, legal, and historical studies. Cape Town and Johannesburg: David Phillip.

    Google Scholar 

  11. García Hernández, C. C. (2014). Immigration detention as punishment. UCLA Law Review, 61(5), 1346–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbons, J. J., & de B. Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement—A report of the commission on safety and abuse in America’s prisons. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon, S. (2013). Solitary confinement, public safety, and recidivism. Univeristy of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 47, 495.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grassian, S., & Kupers, T. (2011). The Colorado study vs. the reality of supermax confinement. Correctional Mental Health Report, 13(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guenther, L. (2013). Solitary confinement: Social death and its afterlives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hafemeister, T., & George, J. (2012). The ninth circle of hell: An Eighth amendment analysis of imposing prolonged supermax solitary confinement on inmates with a mental illness. Denver University Law Review, 90, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Haney, C. (1993). Infamous punishment: The psychological effects of isolation. National Prison Project Journal, 8(2), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and ‘supermax’ confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. New York Review of Law and Social Change, 23, 477–570.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hayes, L., & Rowan, J. (1988). National study of jail suicides: Seven years later. Alexandria, VA: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Homeland Security Advisory Council. (2016). Report of the subcommittee on privatized immigration detention facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

    Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2013). Review of the use of segregation for ICE detainees. 11065.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

  24. Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., et al. (2014). Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 442–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaufman, M. (2008). Detention, due process, and the right to counsel in removal proceedings. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 4(113), 138–149.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kerwin, D., Alulema, D., & Siqi, T. (2015). Piecing together the US immigrant detention puzzle one night at a time: An analysis of all persons in DHS-ICE custody on September 22, 2012. J Migrat Hum Secur, 3(4), 330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim, S., Pendergrass, T., & Zelon, H. (2012). Boxed In: The true cost of extreme isolation in New York’s prisons. New York, NY: New York Civil Liberties Union.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kupers, T. (1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis behind bars and what we must do about it (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kupers, T. (2017). Solitary: The inside story of supermax isolation and how we can abolish it. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Longazel, J., Berman, J., & Fleury-Steiner, B. (2016). The pains of immigrant imprisonment. Sociol Compass, 10(11), 989–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lovell, D., & Toch, H. (2011). Some observations about the colorado segregation study. Correct Ment Health Rep, 13(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Markowitz, P. (2009). Barriers to representation for detained immigrants facing deportation: Varick street detention facility, a case study. Fordham Law Review, 78, 541.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mears, D., & Bales, W. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time to reentry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mehta, S. (2010). Deportation by default: Mental disability, unfair hearings, and indefinite detention in the us immigration system. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mendez, J. (2011). Interim report prepared by the special rapporteur of the human rights council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. New York, NY: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Metcalf, H., Morgan, J., Oliker-Friedland, S., Resnik, J., Spiegel, J., Tae, H., Work, A., & Holbrook, B. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of isolation, and incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional policies. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2286861. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Accessed 5 April 2018.

  37. National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC). (2012). Invisible in isolation: The use of solitary confinement in immigrant detention. Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).

  38. Nelson, S. (2016). Private prison companies, punched in the gut, will keep most federal business. U.S. News and World Report, August 18, 2016.

  39. O’Donnell, I. (2014). Prisoners, solitude, and time. Clarendon studies in criminology. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Obama, B. (2016). The president’s role in advancing criminal justice reform. Harvard Law Review, 130, 811.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Office of Detention Oversight. (2014). Office of detention oversight compliance inspection: Enforcement and removal operations, San Francisco, Yuba County Jail. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

  42. Patler, C., & Branic, N. (2017). Patterns of family visitation during immigration detention. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(4), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Patler, C., & Golash-Boza, T. (2017). The fiscal and human costs of immigrant detention and deportation in the United States. Sociology Compass.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Porporino, F. (1986). Managing violent individuals in correctional settings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(2), 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Procter, N., De Leo, D., & Newman, L. (2013). Suicide and self-harm prevention for people in immigration detention. The Medical Journal of Australia, 199(11), 730–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reiter, K. (2012). The most restrictive alternative: A litigation history of solitary confinement in US prisons, 1960–2006. In A. Sarat (Ed.), Studies in law, politics, and society (Vol. 57, pp. 71–124). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Reiter, K. (2016). 23/7: Pelican bay prison and the rise of long-term solitary confinement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reiter, K., & Blair, T. (2015). Punishing mental illness: Trans-institutionalization and solitary confinement in the United States. Extreme punishment (pp. 177–196). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Reiter, K., & Coutin, S. (2017). Crossing borders and criminalizing identity: The disintegrated subjects of administrative sanctions. Law and Society Review, 51(3), 567–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ridgeway, J., & Casella, J. (2010). Controversial Colorado study shows prisoners ‘improve’ in solitary confinement. Solitary Watch. November 7, 2010.

  51. Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Roma, P., Pompili, M., Lester, D., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2013). Incremental conditions of isolation as a predictor of suicide in prisoners. Forensic Science International, 233(1–3), e1–e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Romano, M. (2017). The prevalence and severity of mental illness among California prisoners on the rise. Stanford Justice Advocacy Project.

  54. Schlanger, M. (2012). Prison segregation: Symposium introduction and preliminary data on racial disparities. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 18, 241.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Slater, R. (1986). Psychiatric intervention in an atmosphere of terror. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, P. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). (2014). Surprising variability in detainer trends by gender, nationality.

  58. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). (2016). New data on 637 detention facilities used by ICE in FY 2015.

  59. United Nations Committee against Torture. (2014). Concluding observations on the third to fifth periodic reports of United States of America.

  60. United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). Bureau of prisons: Improvements needed in bureau of prisons’ monitoring and evaluation of impact of segregated housing. Washington, DC.

  61. Urbina, I., & Rentz, C. (2013). Immigrants held in solitary cells, often for weeks. New York Times, March 23, 2013.

  62. Woodman, S. (2017). Exclusive: ICE put detained immigrants in solitary confinement for hunger striking. The Verge, February 27, 2017.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitlin Patler.


Appendix 1: Text of FOIA request (reference number: 2017-ICFO-01806)

This letter constitutes a request for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §552 (2012), on behalf of [name redacted for peer review] (hereinafter “requestor”). Requestor seeks copies of all reports concerning the use of segregation in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, pursuant to the 2013 ICE directive regarding the use of segregation for ICE detainees (See “11065.1: Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees,” issued September 4, 2013, Federal Enterprise Architecture Number: 306-112-002b). This includes but is not limited to Field Office Reports to ICE Headquarters and quarterly Detention Monitoring Council (DMC) subcommittee reports to the full DMC and the Director (as laid out in “11065.1: Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees,” Issued September 4, 2013). Requestor seeks any and all reports from September 4, 2013 through September 30, 2016. Specifically, requestor seeks this information in regards to any detainee held for any period of time in a detention facility in the Central District of California.

Requestor requests a reduction in fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(ii)(II) (2012) (“fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by…educational or noncommercial scientific institution”) and 6 C.F.R. §5.11(d)(1) (search fees shall not be charged to “educational institutions”). Requestor is an academic researcher at [university name redacted for peer review], which qualifies as an “educational institution” within the meaning of FOIA, 6 C.F.R. §5.11(b)(4) (2012) (defining “educational institution” as “an institution of undergraduate higher education [or] an institution of graduate higher education…that operates a program of scholarly research.”). Furthermore, the information requested is not sought for a commercial purpose. Requestor seeks the information for scholarly research on the immigration system. A summary of requestor’s scholarship can be found here: [website redacted for peer review].

Appendix 2: Non-redacted variables included in ICE FOIA spreadsheet

Variable Values provided by ICE Coded values for analysis Number of cases containing data
Gender Male; female Female = 0; male = 1 1193
Field office area of responsibility (AOR) LOS (Los Angeles); SFR (San Francisco) LOS (Los Angeles) = 1; SFR (San Francisco) = 2 1193
Facility Adelanto correctional facility (CA); Sacramento County Jail/Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (CA); Santa Ana City Jail (CA); Theo Lacy Facility (CA); Yuba County Jail (CA) Adelanto Correctional Facility = 1
Sacramento County Jail/Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center = 2
Santa Ana City Jail = 3
Theo Lacy Facility = 4
Yuba County Jail = 5
Report type 14 Day; 30 Day Interval; 72 Hour 14 Day = 1
30 Day Interval = 2
72 Hour = 3
Placement date [Lists date that detainee entered solitary confinement] Subtracted release date from placement date to calculate length of confinement 1193
Release date [Lists date that detainee left solitary confinement] Subtracted release date from placement date to calculate length of confinement 1148
Disciplinary Infraction [Describes rule violation. Responses reported in narrative as well as infraction codes from ICE disciplinary directives] [Kept original format] 426
Sanction length [Lists the number of days the detainee was assigned to solitary confinement] [Kept original format] 339
Attorney of record No; Yes No = 0; Yes = 1 910
Attorney notification No; Yes No = 0; Yes = 1 922
Detainee request Detainee Request; Facility-Initiated Facility-initiated placement = 0; detainee requested placement = 1 622
Compliance with detention standards No (n = 1); Yes (n = 492) [Kept original format] 493
Mental illness Mental illness; No; None; Yes No/None = 0; Yes/Mental Illness = 1 1184
Serious disability No; Yes No = 0; Yes = 1 1172
Placement reason Disciplinary; Facility Security Threat: Due to Seriousness of Criminal Conviction; Facility Security Threat: Gang Member Status (Not Protective Custody); Facility Security Threat: Other; Facility Security Threat: Violent or Disruptive Behavior; Hunger Strike; Medical: Disabled or Infirm; Medical: Observation; Medical: Other; Medical: Other Infectious Disease; Medical: Tuberculosis; Mental Illness; Other; Pending Investigation of Disciplinary Violation; Protective Custody: Criminal Offense (i.e. Sex Offender); Protective Custody: Gang Status (Protective Custody Only); Protective Custody: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT); Protective Custody: Other Detainee Safety; Suicide Risk Placement Disciplinary or Pending Investigation of Discipline = 1
Facility Security Threat (Any) = 2
Medical (Any) + Mental Illness = 3
Protective Custody (Any) + Suicide Risk Placement = 4
Other + Hunger Strike = 5
Detailed reason [Lists narrative descriptions of why detainee was placed into solitary confinement] [Kept original format] 491
FO recommendation [Lists the recommendation of the Field Officer] [Kept original format] 475
Additional comments export [Lists a chronological description of the confinement, including dates of rules violations and outcome of disciplinary case evaluation] [Kept original format] 637
Special criteria No; Yes [Kept original format] 836

Appendix 3: Average daily detained population compared to solitary confinement cases, by facility

  Avg. daily population (FY2014–FY2016) (n = 2155) Proportion of total avg. daily population (n = 2155) Total solitary confinement cases (n = 1180) Proportion of total solitary confinement cases (n = 1180)
Adelanto 1288 0.60 947 0.80
Sacramento County Jail-Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center 150 0.07 69 0.06
Santa Ana Jail 167 0.08 68 0.06
Theo Lacy 353 0.16 29 0.02
Yuba County Jail 197 0.09 67 0.06
  1. Average daily population information for Adelanto, Sacramento City Jail-Rio Cosumnes, Santa Ana Jail, and Theo Lacy is from FOIA data accessed by Freedom for Immigrants (personal correspondence from Christina Fialho, Co-Founder/Executive Director of Freedom for Immigrants 2018). Average daily population information for Yuba County Jail is from the DHS Office of Detention Oversight and was available for the 2014 fiscal year only (Office of Detention Oversight 2014). Year-by-year estimates for average daily detained population and solitary confinement cases available upon request

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patler, C., Sacha, J.O. & Branic, N. The black box within a black box: Solitary confinement practices in a subset of U.S. immigrant detention facilities. J Pop Research 35, 435–465 (2018).

Download citation


  • Solitary confinement
  • Immigration detention
  • United States
  • Immigration