ACLU Sues ICE in Los Angeles Over Full-Body Restraint Device as Trump Administration Dismisses Allegations
The ACLU of Southern California has sued ICE in Los Angeles federal court for records on its use of the WRAP full-body restraint device, alleging prolonged and punitive use on deportation flights. The Trump administration dismissed the suit as a "false allegation," while ICE says the device is rarely used and only on its own flights.
What happened
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a 21-page lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles federal court on Thursday, September 24, 2026, seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act on the agency's use of the WRAP, a full-body restraint device informally known as "the burrito" or "the bag," according to LA Daily News. The ACLU alleges the device, which it says is intended for short-term use only, has been applied to detainees for extended periods during long deportation flights, and that reports suggest ICE personnel have used it as punishment against undocumented individuals who protested their deportations or tried to contact attorneys, as reported by The Independent. The Trump administration pushed back the following day: a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told City News Service, "Another day, another false allegation. The ACLU should just change its name. It's clear they only care about illegal aliens, not Americans." An ICE spokesperson said the restraint suits "are only used on flights with combative or potentially self-harming detainees," only on ICE's own planes rather than commercial flights, applied only by trained personnel, and that "it is very rare." The ICE representative added that the devices are never used in ICE detention centers.
Why it matters
The dispute centers on the physical risks of full-body restraint and on the public's ability to scrutinize how a federal agency uses force. The lawsuit states: "Individuals subjected to the device have reported difficulty breathing, chest pressure, loss of sensation and serious injuries, while medical and use-of-force experts have warned that prolonged or improper use of full-body restraints can create significant risks of positional asphyxia, circulatory distress and death." The complaint also cites a November 2024 annual report to Congress from the DHS civil rights office, which opened a complaint alleging ICE "inappropriately" used the WRAP, did not operate it per the manufacturer's instructions, "caused breathing difficulty and pain, failed to consider medical and psychological conditions prior to use and lacked sufficient monitoring." The suit further cites an October 2025 Associated Press report identifying 12 fatal incidents over the past decade in which local police or jailers used the WRAP and autopsies determined "restraint" played a role in the death. The ACLU contends ICE's current Air Operations Handbook "provides little substantive guidance concerning when, how or under what safeguards the device may be deployed," and states: "The requested records are necessary to evaluate whether ICE's practices comport with constitutional requirements, medically accepted standards and the agency's own policies and obligations." The case also lands in an active legislative debate: in February 2026, Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez, an Illinois Democrat, joined by LULAC, the National Immigration Law Center and other advocacy groups, introduced the Full Body Restraint Prohibition Act, which would prohibit the use of DHS funds to acquire or use the WRAP.
How it is being covered
According to ground.news, seven sources are carrying the story, with a left/centre/right split of 33/67/0 percent, and five of six rated outlets score high or very high on factuality. The outlet tracking shows a clear blindspot on the right: none of the rated coverage comes from right-leaning outlets, meaning the administration's defense of the device is largely appearing through centrist and left-of-centre publications rather than through conservative ones.
What to watch
First, whether the Los Angeles federal court orders ICE to produce the FOIA records on a timeline the ACLU seeks, or allows the agency the discretionary exemptions it may assert. Second, any response from DHS or ICE to the specific allegations drawn from the November 2024 DHS civil rights report to Congress, which the complaint quotes at length and which the agency has not, in the statements cited, directly addressed. Third, the trajectory of the Full Body Restraint Prohibition Act in Congress, and whether the lawsuit prompts additional oversight requests from lawmakers. Fourth, whether further reporting emerges on the 12 fatal incidents cited from the October 2025 Associated Press investigation, and whether any involve ICE rather than local police or jailers. Finally, watch for the ACLU to supplement its records request with litigation over the underlying practices if the documents it receives support its allegations, and for advocacy groups that backed the Ramirez bill to cite the case in their campaigns.
By the numbers
Source snapshot
