Government Agencies Shouldn't Be Allowed to Destroy Their Paper Trail of Medical Abuse and Neglect

Last year, Anadith Reyes Alvarez, a medically vulnerable 8-year-old girl, died in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention after contract medical staff failed to review her medical records or consult with a physician and refused her emergency medical transport and care. As a court monitor concluded, Anadith’s death was a “preventable tragedy” pointing to an “urgent need” to improve “CBP medical oversight.” Sadly, this kind of medical abuse and neglect is not an anomaly in CBP facilities. Last month, CBP employees blew the whistle, indicating that CBP’s contract oversight office has long been aware of serious violations in the provision of medical care at CBP detention facilities, including significant understaffing, and providing medical services without appropriate medical licenses.

In the midst of these disturbing developments, CBP has requested permission from the National Archives and Records Administration to destroy “medical case files of persons in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection” after 20 years.

The medical records slated for destruction by CBP have long-term value for legal, research, historical, and accountability purposes. That’s why the ACLU and 71 organizations, including the American Immigration Council and the Texas Civil Rights Project, as well as 165 academic scholars, filed a regulatory comment today to challenge CBP’s proposed destruction of these records.

The medical records in question are often the primary evidence of medical care (or lack thereof) received by people in CBP custody, and are key to government accountability efforts to address systemic medical neglect in CBP detention. These records are also critical to legal claims by individuals or their surviving family members — including people who may still have live legal challenges long after the incidents occurred, such as people with disabilities or those who were minors when the abuse or neglect occurred.

These medical records are also of significant historical importance: Historians have frequently turned to the National Archives for primary sources regarding the treatment of immigrants, including the use of health-based criteria as a basis for entry or exclusion, and access to medical care by migrants at the border. Scholars have also examined records from government agencies that provided medical care to immigrants, including the U.S. Public Health Service — a precursor to CBP’s current medical care providers.

Destruction of CBP’s medical records would eliminate an important primary source developed during CBP’s nascent period as an agency — from its establishment in 2003, to a time marked by policies of family separation, and the use of Title 42, a purported public health measure to expel millions of immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CBP’s plans to destroy medical records will only serve to obscure its tragic record of medical neglect and inhibit efforts to hold the agency accountable. Each day, CBP holds approximately 15,000 migrants in short-term detention facilities while processing them at the border. CBP policy maintains that people should not be detained for longer than 72 hours in these facilities, often small, frigid holding cells commonly referred to as hieleras (“freezers” in Spanish). CBP, however, regularly detains people for as long as 10 days, and in many cases, for over 30 days. Government oversight agencies and advocates have detailed numerous incidents of negligent medical care to people in CBP custody, including denial of care to people with broken bones, a damaged testicle due to injury by a Border Patrol officer, and a ruptured appendix.

An ACLU investigation also highlighted multiple cases of medical neglect in CBP detention, including the denial of care to a pregnant person, which preceded a stillbirth; and withholding of prescription medication for a child detained after undergoing spinal surgery resulting from a car accident. At least five people died in CBP custody in FY 2021 after having a medical emergency.

CBP’s treatment of migrants in its custody needs more transparency and documentation — not less. Like former challenges to the destruction of documents related to immigration detention, government agencies should not be allowed to destroy the paper trail of their incompetence and wrongdoing.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog