Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
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 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Prisoners' Rights
Featured
Arizona
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), 红杏视频 of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. More details here.
Court Case
Sep 2022
Prisoners' Rights
Alex A. v. Edwards
The 红杏视频 National Prison Project and partner civil rights attorneys filed a federal class-action lawsuit to prevent the transfer of children in the custody of Louisiana's Office of Juvenile Justice to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly known as Angola Prison.
Texas
Jul 2021
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al
Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The 红杏视频 has been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
Mississippi
Mar 2017
Prisoners' Rights
Smart Justice
Dockery v. Hall
The 红杏视频, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for-profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCF is operated "in a perpetual state of crisis" where prisoners are at "grave risk of death and loss of limbs." The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.
All Cases
66 Prisoners' Rights Cases
Colorado
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
E.L. v. Claps
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.
Explore case
Colorado
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
E.L. v. Claps
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.
Ohio Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Explore case
Ohio Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Franklin v. Martinez
This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution鈥攁 method known as the 鈥渋nterstitial approach鈥濃�攁nd embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico鈥檚 own law, history, and values. The Court鈥檚 decision could have major implications for New Mexicans鈥� ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
Explore case
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Franklin v. Martinez
This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution鈥攁 method known as the 鈥渋nterstitial approach鈥濃�攁nd embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico鈥檚 own law, history, and values. The Court鈥檚 decision could have major implications for New Mexicans鈥� ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Perttu v Richards
The Seventh Amendment gives people a constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases seeking money damages. The Supreme Court held that incarcerated plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on questions of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, when the facts underlying exhaustion would also decide the merits of their case.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Perttu v Richards
The Seventh Amendment gives people a constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases seeking money damages. The Supreme Court held that incarcerated plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on questions of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, when the facts underlying exhaustion would also decide the merits of their case.