Connecticut Department of Correction Updates In-Cell Restraint Policies Under Federal Settlement

The Connecticut Department of Correction (CT DOC) ended the general use of in-cell restraints effective Sept. 1, 2026, under a settlement resolving a federal lawsuit over the treatment of incarcerated people with mental illness.

The agreement resolves litigation brought by Disability Rights Connecticut challenging the department’s use of in-cell restraints and prolonged isolation. The lawsuit alleged that incarcerated people with mental illness were sometimes restrained for extended periods in response to behaviors associated with their mental health conditions.

Under revised Department of Correction policies, correctional facilities no longer generally use handcuffs, leg irons, waist restraints or other restraints intended to limit a person’s movement when that individual is confined in a cell.

CT DOC subsequently revised Administrative Directive 6.5, its Use of Force directive, to remove references to in-cell restraints. The revision was approved in August as the department prepared to discontinue the practice under the settlement.

The settlement permits the use of full-stationary restraints in limited circumstances, including when an incarcerated person is engaging in self-harm or poses a serious threat to themselves, other incarcerated people or staff. The CT DOC states that the permitted restraints must use devices that are soft, wide and flexible.

The agreement also calls for staff training, revised protocols, medical and mental health oversight, documentation and internal auditing intended to promote consistent implementation across Connecticut correctional facilities.

“This agreement serves as a continuation of the progress we have made using mental health interventions and de-escalation techniques as appropriate alternatives to more restrictive practices,” Interim Correction Commissioner Sharonda Carlos said in a statement.

Carlos added that the department would continue providing correctional staff with training and resources to safely manage challenging situations without relying on in-cell restraints.

Disability Rights Connecticut filed the federal lawsuit in 2021, with representation from the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut and other counsel. The case challenged the Department of Correction’s use of prolonged isolation and in-cell restraints on incarcerated people with mental illness.

According to the plaintiffs, the department had used restraints in some cases for hours or longer in response to behaviors they alleged were symptoms of mental illness. The lawsuit contended that the practices harmed incarcerated people and violated constitutional protections as well as federal disability law.

The state disputed allegations that its practices constituted abuse.

The settlement does not represent the beginning of Connecticut’s efforts to change restrictive housing practices. Northern Correctional Institution, the state’s former high-security facility that figured prominently in the original litigation, closed in 2021. Connecticut subsequently restricted isolated confinement through a 2021 executive order and 2022 legislation, which placed limits on when and for how long incarcerated people may be held in isolated confinement.

The new agreement establishes additional limits specifically addressing restraints used while a person remains confined within a cell.

The Connecticut settlement underscores the role policy plays in translating legal requirements and evolving correctional practices into day-to-day operations. For agency leaders, reviewing a policy may involve more than determining what conduct is permitted or prohibited. Effective policies also need to define exceptions, establish approval and documentation requirements, address staff training and provide mechanisms for oversight and consistent implementation.

The settlement reflects themes addressed during the recent LexisNexis®-sponsored American Jail Association webinar “It’s in the Policy,” held Sept. 9, 2026. Led by corrections and law enforcement veteran Timothy L. Fuss, the session examined the distinction between policy and procedure, steps for policy development and considerations for policy implementation.

Watch the webinar recording.

The case is Disability Rights Connecticut Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Correction et al., No. 3:21-cv-00146, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

This article is adapted from reporting originally published by Law360® and is used with permission. Original reporting by Aaron Keller, edited by Patrick Reagan. Additional reporting, context and analysis by LexisNexis.