Federal Wardens Must Immediately Flatten the Curve in our Nation's Prisons
With 10 deaths and more than 500 positive COVID-19 cases in the nation’s federal prisons, wardens must “” to “.” These are the words that Attorney General William Barr used on April 3rd when he the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to reduce the federal prison population in the wake of COVID-19.
This instruction – though still lacking in concrete guidelines and timelines for release – is nearly a 180-degree turn for the Department of Justice (DOJ), which was taking a less urgent approach a just few weeks ago, even that “many inmates will be safer in BOP facilities.” Now realizing this is not the case, BOP wardens have been given the directive to protect lives against COVID-19. Having failed to prevent the suffering on their own to date, they must reverse course as well.
Since BOP reported its of COVID-19 on March 21, the virus has spread through its facilities “.” In a matter of days, the COVID-19 infection rate increased according to BOP’s own , which is likely an . Over the course of two weeks, those who tested positive for COVID-19 increased according to the Federal Defenders. Today, more than 350 incarcerated persons and almost 200 staff . And with 70 percent of the BOP population and , people of color will bear the brunt of prison outbreaks.
Public health experts that jails and prisons could become “incubators” for COVID-19. It is impossible to heed the primary of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when incarcerated or working in a prison. You cannot practice social distancing behind bars. Hand sanitizer is contraband at most facilities. Soap costs money and can otherwise be hard to come by. And of the federal prison population has chronic conditions. Experts say that prison systems are like “ and “should not weather the coronavirus on their own.” The clear solution is to reduce the size of the incarcerated population.
With the issuance of the , DOJ and BOP suggested that they were taking those steps, as advocates, , , and had called for. The recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act gives DOJ and BOP somewhat broader authority to reduce the federal prison population in the wake of COVID-19. It is this authority that Attorney General Barr invoked on April 3 when he “time is of the essence” to move “all at-risk inmates” to home confinement.
However, BOP wardens are not moving fast enough to safely reduce the federal prison population. Their proposed “” to review prisoners for release at the federal facility at Oakdale, Louisiana — where six men have already died and we had to sue to get the plan in the first place — is woefully insufficient and lacks any enforceable timelines. This shows that certain wardens — and perhaps BOP as a whole still — do not grasp the severity of the moment.
Before utilizing the CARES Act provisions, BOP moved people from prison to home confinement in response to the pandemic. Now, over are on home confinement. But thousands should be going home with DOJ’s to immediately transfer “the most vulnerable inmates” at “the most affected facilities.” DOJ must now be clear that all facilities require population reduction to mitigate or prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, and that all incarcerated persons susceptible to COVID-19 — those who are older and elderly, as well as those who have underlying conditions — be sent home or to another facility where they can socially distance. BOP should not limit release based on facility or risk assessments.
A third of BOP facilities are currently reporting COVID-19 cases. One third. Prisons in Oakdale, Louisiana; Connecticut; , North Carolina; California; and , Mississippi each report several dozen cases. These numbers are unacceptable, and preventable.
ACLU advocacy has already led to thousands of people being released from local jails and state prisons. The ACLU will continue pushing (and suing) from every angle to stem the outbreak in our nation’s jails and prisons. The wardens overseeing the 122 federal prisons have no time to spare. It is critical that they use every tool at their disposal to get people home.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.