After Improvements, Juvenile Detention Center Fulfills Settlement with ACLU, and Landmark Case Is Closed
Since 2001, the ACLU has represented prisoners at the Rhode Island Training School for Youth in their lawsuit over the facility’s conditions
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that a landmark Rhode Island civil rights case over the rights of incarcerated youth has come to a close. At the behest of the ACLU and the state of Rhode Island, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Smith dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Rhode Island Training School for Youth in Cranston. The ACLU’s National Prison Project joined the suit in 2001, thirty years after it had been filed to challenge conditions at the facility. At the time the case was filed, teen prisoners did not receive adequate food, schooling, or medical care; the institution provided no mental health care or treatment.
“I’m proud to say ‘Case closed,’” said Amy Fettig, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project and lead attorney in the case. “Instead of unconstitutional neglect and mistreatment, the Rhode Island Training School for Youth now follows the best practices for working with teens in detention.”
In 1973, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit entered into a consent decree that addressed such critical problems as overcrowding; insufficient staffing; meager medical care; a deteriorated physical plant; inadequate meals; scant academic, vocational, and physical education programs; and a lack of mental health care and treatment. A special master was appointed to oversee compliance with the consent decree, and the decree has been amended several times over the years as the institution met some of the terms, most recently in 2014.
In his order closing the case, Judge Smith found that the state has substantially complied with the only key elements of the decree that still remained:
- Construction of new facilities to meet national standards;
- Implementation of a revised policy and procedures manual;
- Implementation of a detailed and effective administrative grievance procedure to handle residents’ complaints; and
- Establishment of an independent audit and review process by a team of outside experts to ensure substantial compliance with the national best practice standards for juvenile justice created by the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.
When the lawsuit was filed in 1971, the Rhode Island Training School for Youth was called the Boys’ Training School. Today it holds approximately 80 boys and girls between the ages of 13 and 18.
ACLU of Rhode Island volunteer attorney John W. Dineen served as local counsel in the lawsuit, Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola.
For the judge’s order and more information about Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola:
/cases/inmates-rhode-island-training-school-youth-v-piccola
For information about the ACLU’s National Prison Project:
/issues/prisoners-rights
Juvenile Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola
Juvenile Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Inmates of the Rhode Island Training School for Youth v. Piccola
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story