National: Supreme Court Docket Includes Cases Affecting People in Prison
December 15, 2005 - 3:32pm
The US Supreme Court is deciding several cases that will affect the rights of incarcerated people. In early November, the court heard arguments in Goodman v. Georgia (04-1236) and US v. Georgia (04-1203). The outcome of this case will determine the rights of incarcerated people with disabilities. The State of Georgia is arguing that the state can ignore the federal Americans with Disabilities Act when it comes to people in prison. Tony Goodman, a prisoner in Georgia who is paraplegic, brought the initial suit. Mr. Goodman is suing the State of Georgia for failing to provide facilities that enable a person in a wheelchair to function. His suit has been combined with another lawsuit filed in support of Goodman’s case by the US Department of Justice, since they enforce the American with Disabilities Act.
With Bustillo v. Johnson (05-51) and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (04-10566) the court will determine the rights of people who are citizens of other countries to notify their consulates if they are arrested and charged with crimes. The law behind this case comes from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which requires that people be advised of their right to talk with a representative of their government. In neither of these cases was the accused informed of his right to consult with his government.
The Court has also agreed to hear Woodford v. Ngo (05-416), which will clarify the ability of prisoners to file suits under the terms of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA). Viet Mike Ngo is a California prisoner who filed a lawsuit to protest a disciplinary action taken against him by the DOC. Under the terms of the PLRA, he is required to exhaust all his administrative options before filing suit, and the CA DOC has argued that he failed to do that by not submitting his grievance in time. At the heart of this case is whether prisoners will have to completely exhaust the administrative grievance procedure by their state DOC, on the terms set by the DOC, before they can file a lawsuit against the DOC in federal court.
In March of 2006, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could affect the First Amendment rights of people in prison. Beard v. Banks (04-1739) involves a Pennsylvania prison policy that denies television, radio, and most reading material to people who the prison determines are most likely to harm themselves or others. The forty people in the prison’s segregation unit may only read religious literature, legal material, or paperbacks from the prison library. The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit sided with prisoners, striking down the policy in a 2 to 1 decision. The one dissenting opinion came from Judge Samuel Alito who wrote that the rule was legitimate for controlling the prison population. Samuel Alito is President Bush’s current nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
One case the court refused to hear, Johnson v. Bush (05-212), involved the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people. The case was a challenge to the Florida law that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from ever voting. The US Federal Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s voting ban. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case permits the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to stand. About 600,000 Floridians, many of them African-American, who have served their prison sentences and completed parole or probation are banned from voting for life.
The court also upheld the government’s ability to humiliate people as punishment by rejecting the appeal of Shawn Gementera in Gementera v. United States (05-227). For stealing mail, Mr. Gementera was sentenced to two months in jail and 100 hours of standing in front of a post office wearing a sandwich board that read: “I stole mail. This is my punishment.” The time was reduced to eight hours. Although international human rights documents clearly prohibit “degrading treatment or punishment,” humiliation is not considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment,” as prohibited by the Constitution.
Sources: ACLU (www.aclu.org), The New Standard (www.newstandardnews.net), CNN (www.cnn.com), The Free Press (www.freepress.org), and the New York Times (www.nytimes.com), the Washington Post and Findlaw.com.
Article by Caylor Roling
The US Supreme Court is deciding several cases that will affect the rights of incarcerated people. In early November, the court heard arguments in Goodman v. Georgia (04-1236) and US v. Georgia (04-1203). The outcome of this case will determine the rights of incarcerated people with disabilities. The State of Georgia is arguing that the state can ignore the federal Americans with Disabilities Act when it comes to people in prison. Tony Goodman, a prisoner in Georgia who is paraplegic, brought the initial suit. Mr. Goodman is suing the State of Georgia for failing to provide facilities that enable a person in a wheelchair to function. His suit has been combined with another lawsuit filed in support of Goodman’s case by the US Department of Justice, since they enforce the American with Disabilities Act.
With Bustillo v. Johnson (05-51) and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (04-10566) the court will determine the rights of people who are citizens of other countries to notify their consulates if they are arrested and charged with crimes. The law behind this case comes from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which requires that people be advised of their right to talk with a representative of their government. In neither of these cases was the accused informed of his right to consult with his government.
The Court has also agreed to hear Woodford v. Ngo (05-416), which will clarify the ability of prisoners to file suits under the terms of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA). Viet Mike Ngo is a California prisoner who filed a lawsuit to protest a disciplinary action taken against him by the DOC. Under the terms of the PLRA, he is required to exhaust all his administrative options before filing suit, and the CA DOC has argued that he failed to do that by not submitting his grievance in time. At the heart of this case is whether prisoners will have to completely exhaust the administrative grievance procedure by their state DOC, on the terms set by the DOC, before they can file a lawsuit against the DOC in federal court.
In March of 2006, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could affect the First Amendment rights of people in prison. Beard v. Banks (04-1739) involves a Pennsylvania prison policy that denies television, radio, and most reading material to people who the prison determines are most likely to harm themselves or others. The forty people in the prison’s segregation unit may only read religious literature, legal material, or paperbacks from the prison library. The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit sided with prisoners, striking down the policy in a 2 to 1 decision. The one dissenting opinion came from Judge Samuel Alito who wrote that the rule was legitimate for controlling the prison population. Samuel Alito is President Bush’s current nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
One case the court refused to hear, Johnson v. Bush (05-212), involved the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people. The case was a challenge to the Florida law that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from ever voting. The US Federal Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s voting ban. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case permits the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to stand. About 600,000 Floridians, many of them African-American, who have served their prison sentences and completed parole or probation are banned from voting for life.
The court also upheld the government’s ability to humiliate people as punishment by rejecting the appeal of Shawn Gementera in Gementera v. United States (05-227). For stealing mail, Mr. Gementera was sentenced to two months in jail and 100 hours of standing in front of a post office wearing a sandwich board that read: “I stole mail. This is my punishment.” The time was reduced to eight hours. Although international human rights documents clearly prohibit “degrading treatment or punishment,” humiliation is not considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment,” as prohibited by the Constitution.
Sources: ACLU (www.aclu.org), The New Standard (www.newstandardnews.net), CNN (www.cnn.com), The Free Press (www.freepress.org), and the New York Times (www.nytimes.com), the Washington Post and Findlaw.com.
