红杏视频

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court ruled today that incarcerated people have the right to a jury trial on questions about whether they had access to a prison鈥檚 grievance process when those questions are closely tied to the main issues in their civil rights cases. The decision is a step toward ensuring accountability for constitutional violations that happen behind bars. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a law passed nearly 30 years ago, incarcerated people seeking to vindicate their civil rights must exhaust the prison鈥檚 internal grievance system before they can file a lawsuit in federal court. The court's decision affirms that when disputes over exhaustion are intertwined with the facts related to the civil rights claims, plaintiffs have a right to have those questions heard by a jury. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is important for the rights of incarcerated people, who too often are blocked from having their day in court after prison officers first violate their rights 鈥� in this case, alleged sexual abuse 鈥� and then take steps to silence them,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淭he Perttu decision is a broader victory for due process and our fundamental constitutional principle that no one is above the law.鈥� The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Michigan, Legal Aid Society of the City of New York, and Public Justice filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit鈥檚 decision that found that allowing jury trials in these contexts is in line with the PLRA and the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial. 鈥淚ncarcerated people rarely get a chance to hold the government accountable for abuses in prison. In too many cases, courts are quick to accept the word of prison officials over incarcerated plaintiffs before the facts are fully heard,鈥� said Jennifer Wedekind, senior staff attorney at the 红杏视频鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭oday's ruling will ensure that more incarcerated plaintiffs finally get their day in front of a jury.鈥� The 红杏视频鈥檚 brief also pushed back against the state鈥檚 argument that this ruling would lead to a flood frivolous of litigation, explaining that it only applies in a limited universe of cases, that empirical evidence conclusively refutes the state鈥檚 arguments, and that efficiency should not be a factor in assessing whether plaintiffs have a right to a jury. This case is a part of the 红杏视频's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal district court judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Trump Administration executive order prohibiting federal Bureau of Prisons (鈥淏OP鈥�) officials from providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender people. The injunction does not require BOP to provide gender-affirming surgical care. The court also granted the plaintiff鈥檚 motion for a class certification and extended injunctive relief to the full class, which encompasses all persons who are or will be incarcerated in BOP facilities and have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who receive that diagnosis in the future. 鈥淭his is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody,鈥� said Corene Kendrick, Deputy Director of the 红杏视频鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution. The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all incarcerated people.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere,鈥� said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Managing Attorney at Transgender Law Center. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person鈥攊ncarcerated or not, transgender or not鈥攕hould have their rights to medically-necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them.鈥� "Today's ruling is an important lifeline for trans people in federal custody," said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at 红杏视频-D.C. 鈥淭he ruling is also a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." Following a January 20 executive order from President Trump that prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons, the BOP issued a policy stating that "no Bureau of Prisons funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate鈥檚 appearance to that of the opposite sex.鈥� It also prohibits clothing and commissary items it deems inconsistent with a person鈥檚 assigned sex, and requires all BOP staff to misgender transgender people. In March, two transgender men and one transgender woman serving sentences in facilities in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Florida filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and BOP, challenging the Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers and prescribed hormone therapy by health care staff, but either had their treatments suspended or were told they would be suspended soon. The filing argues this policy violates the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on 鈥渃ruel and unusual punishment,鈥� which federal courts have long held includes the denial of medically necessary health care, including access to gender-affirming care. It also argues that the policy violates the equal protection requirement of the 5th Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was filed on behalf of the three plaintiffs and all other transgender people in federal prisons by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of DC, and the Transgender Law Center. BOP also instructed officials to remove any transgender women held in women鈥檚 facilities and place them in men鈥檚 facilities, an issue under challenge in multiple separate lawsuits. Today鈥檚 order from the court can be found here.

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant鈥檚 vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction. The 红杏视频鈥檚 Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee鈥檚 legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer鈥檚 alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction.