吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court today rejected Arizona鈥檚 request to stop a court-appointed receiver from assuming control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons. The decision allows the receivership ordered by a federal judge to move forward after a decade of litigation over unconstitutional and deadly conditions in Arizona prisons. The lawsuit, Jensen v. Thornell, was filed in 2012 by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. For more than a decade, ADCRR has been on notice about the systemic health care failures in its prisons and has yet to address the issue, despite multiple court orders and interventions. In July 2026, after years of reporting from independent experts detailing the deadly consequences of the state鈥檚 failure to comply, Judge Silver ordered a receiver to oversee prison health care. 鈥淎rizona has spent years fighting accountability at every turn while people in its prisons continue to suffer and die from preventable causes,鈥� said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淒uring that time, the state has paid millions of dollars in fines and spent enormous sums litigating this case, and people in ADCRR custody pay the highest price of all. The question is not whether there is a crisis 鈥� that has been documented time and time again. The question is whether Arizona will stop fighting and start fixing it. Today鈥檚 decision clears the way for a receiver to do what the state has failed to do for more than a decade. Court-appointed independent monitors have repeatedly documented preventable deaths, permanent injuries, and needless suffering because of the state鈥檚 failure to comply with court orders. In one case, a man died after ADCRR discontinued his necessary anti-seizure medication without reviewing his medical history. In another, a man who suffered a heart attack and underwent heart surgery died after the state failed to provide him follow up care or properly manage his medication. Monitors also documented five suicides in the first three months of 2024 that they concluded may have been prevented had the state followed the court鈥檚 orders. Additional quotes are as follows: 鈥淭his outcome will allow the critical and long-awaited work of the receiver to move forward, and for class members to obtain the relief the district court ordered years ago,鈥� said Maya Abela, deputy legal director at Disability Rights Arizona. 鈥淔urther delay would have only served to increase the risk of harm to incarcerated people in Arizona鈥檚 state-operated prisons, and we are glad the Court recognized that this must not be allowed to occur.鈥� 鈥淭he decision from the Supreme Court confirms what we鈥檝e known 鈥� a court-ordered receiver must be allowed to step in and address the serious deficiencies within the state prison system and ensure ADCRR is being held accountable to their constitutional duties,鈥� said Tara DeGeorge, legal director at the ACLU of Arizona. 鈥淔or far too long, people in ADCRR custody have been unjustly subject to inadequate medical and mental health care resulting in unnecessary medical complications and even death. ADCRR has had more than enough time to address the dire crisis 鈥� the only option left for successful reform is through a receivership.鈥� 鈥淒espite more than a decade of litigation, Arizona鈥檚 prisons continue to be plagued by widespread and shocking medical and mental health neglect. We are relieved that the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision today will allow the receiver to begin the necessary, life-saving work of reforming the prisons鈥� healthcare system,鈥� said Sophie Hart, managing attorney at the Prison Law Office.

Following the Oregon Department of Corrections鈥� unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them 鈥渢oo attenuated鈥� to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals鈥� 鈥渃lose connection鈥� test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.

Family members of individuals incarcerated in Adams County Jail are challenging a ban on in-person visits on the grounds that it violates their right to familial association under the Colorado Constitution. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, in part based on its ruling that individuals cannot sue directly under the Colorado Constitution to stop violations of their individual rights if other remedies are theoretically available under state or federal law. If that ruling is left to stand, state constitutional protections could exist in name only, leaving courts unable to stop violations if a plaintiff could potentially proceed under a narrower statutory claim that might provide lesser relief or fail on the facts of the case. This case could therefore have far-reaching implications for the enforceability of constitutional rights across Colorado.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court issued a decision today ruling against Damon Landor, a Rastafari man whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison officials in violation of his religious beliefs In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow incarcerated people to seek monetary damages from individual prison officials, leaving people whose religious rights are violated in prison without a meaningful remedy in many cases. Statement from Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a devastating blow to the religious freedom and dignity of incarcerated people. Prison officials held Damon Landor down and forcibly shaved his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafarian faith, after throwing in the trash a copy of a binding federal court order confirming prisoners鈥� religious right to wear dreadlocks. By denying Mr. Landor a meaningful remedy, the Supreme Court has made it harder to hold prison officials accountable when they violate the rights of people in their custody. 鈥淩eligious freedom does not stop at the prison gate, and civil rights are real only when they can be enforced. This decision sends a dangerous message that prison officials may escape accountability even for egregious violations of federal law. The ACLU will continue fighting to ensure that incarcerated people can practice their faith, protect their bodily autonomy, and seek justice when their rights are violated.鈥� The ACLU鈥檚 amicus brief in this case is part of the Joan and Irwin Jacobs docket.