Liberal SCOTUS justices dissent in extended solitary case

Share and Follow

Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan pose at a courtesy visit in the Justices Conference Room prior to the investiture ceremony of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson September 30, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)

The liberal wing of the United States Supreme Court has once again dissented from the Court’s refusal to reconsider the case of an inmate’s claim of egregious mistreatment.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a six-page dissent on the Court’s denial of certiorari in the case of Johnson v. Prentice, in which she detailed some of the horrific conditions to which the inmate had been subjected for three continuous years. She was joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Michael Johnson, an inmate in at Pontiac Correctional Center near Chicago, was classified as “seriously mentally ill” because of his diagnosis of bipolar disorder, severe depression, and other conditions; he was placed in solitary confinement a windowless, “perpetually lit cell about the size of a parking space” for over three years.

Jackson noted that Johnson’s cell was not only shockingly small, but was also unsanitary, “often caked with human waste,” poorly ventilated, and unbearably hot. Prison officials refused to provide cleaning supplies to Johnson, and “he was frequently forced to clean that filth with his bare hands,” she said. Further, Johnson was allowed out of his cell to shower only once per week, and even then, for only ten minutes.

“Thus, for three years, Johnson had no opportunity at all to stretch his limbs or breathe fresh air,” wrote the justice.

Jackson also detailed some of the particularly terrible consequences Johnson suffered as a result of the conditions. His “mental state deteriorated rapidly,” he hallucinated, developed muscular and respiratory problems, “he excoriated his own flesh, urinated and defecated on himself, and smeared feces all over his body and cell.” Johnson also became suicidal and even tried to bait prison guards into beating him to death.

In addition to the abysmal conditions, Johnson was also deprived of exercise for nearly his entire time at the facility. Jackson called the deprivation “unusually severe.”

Johnson filed a “no-yard-access” lawsuit against prison officials for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and the district court refused to appoint counsel. The crux of the claim was that guards were deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s treatment. Ultimately, prison officials prevailed in the case at the summary judgment phase after Johnson submitted only a partial handwritten opposition brief ending with the statement, “I could not finish.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Johnson.

Jackson said in her dissent the Seventh Circuit wrongly applied the legal analysis required for claims of deliberate indifference and failed to even consider the cumulative effect that depriving the man of exercise for three years had on his physical and mental health. The appellate court should have focused on the discrepancy between the factual accounts of the various parties and reversed on summary judgment, said Jackson.

Unlike statements on denials of certiorari in other cases, Jackson held back from slamming her fellow justices in her six-page statement. Rather, she narrowed her focus to recounting the disturbing facts of Johnson’s incarceration and what she called an “indisputable legal error” made by the courts below in reviewing Johnson’s claim. Jackson said that not only would she have granted certiorari in the case, but given the Seventh Circuit’s error, she would have summarily reversed.

Jackson did remind the justices that in 2015, they specifically recognized solitary confinement as a practice that “exact[s] a terrible price,” and that “serious objections” to using solitary as a form of imprisonment have come before the Court “for more than a century.”

You can read the full ruling here.