Court Records Reveal ICE Plan to Force-Feed Detained Hunger Strikers

A multi-part investigation published by The Guardian based on hundreds of pages of federal court filings has revealed that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) secured emergency court orders to subject at least 10 detained hunger strikers to involuntary medical procedures—practices widely condemned by human rights groups and medical ethics bodies as a form of torture. The court filings, bearing the signatures of federal judges across multiple jurisdictions, detail a covert legal strategy to bypass consent and forcibly break hunger strikes staged inside secretive federal and privately operated detention centers. Key Findings from the InvestigationInvoluntary Procedures Authorized: Federal judges issued emergency orders granting ICE personnel authority to perform non-consensual procedures, including nasogastric force-feeding (coercively inserting a tube through the nose, down the esophagus, and into the stomach to pump liquid nutrition), involuntary intravenous hydration, forced blood draws, and involuntary urine collection. Documented Victims: Court records show officials forcibly administered these treatments to at least three—and likely up to five—detained immigrants. In five additional documented cases, hunger strikers surrendered and broke their protest at the final moment as medical and security personnel prepared to initiate the forced procedure. Lack of Legal Representation: In six of the cases reviewed, federal judges granted emergency force-feeding orders during swift, closed proceedings where the detained immigrants had no legal counsel present to represent or defend their rights. Prolonged Force-Feeding Cases: Court filings reveal that one Kurdish asylum seeker detained at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas was subjected to forced feedings over a period of nearly eight months. Other cases occurred at the Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida, and facilities in Arizona. The Legal and Human Rights ControversyInternational human rights bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council and the World Medical Association (WMA) via the Declaration of Tokyo and Declaration of Malta, explicitly

 

Next page

Next »

Leave a Comment