Civil Rights Groups File Class Action Lawsuit Against Wisconsin State Officials for Unconstitutional Use of Solitary Confinement, Other Inhumane Conditions in State-Run Youth Correctional Facilities
MILWAUKEE, Wisc. – The ACLU of Wisconsin and Juvenile Law Center, with pro-bono assistance from Quarles & Brady, against four Wisconsin state officials, including Wisconsin Secretary of Corrections Jon E. Litscher, citing the unconstitutional use of solitary confinement and inhumane conditions for youth in state-run correctional facilities. The suit was filed on behalf of youth confined in the Lincoln Hills School for Boys and the Copper Lake School for Girls.
“Federal and state officials raided Lincoln Hills School for Boys (LHS) and the Copper Lake School for Girls (CLS) in December 2015 after numerous reports of mistreatment of young people,” said ACLU of Wisconsin Attorney Timothy Muth. “Many staff were fired and new leadership was put in place. Despite these changes, Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake continue to use such barbaric practices as solitary confinement, mechanical restraints, and pepper sprays, which only damage children and make them more - not less - likely to reoffend. The State of Wisconsin is far outside the constitutional boundaries and far outside the practices recommended by juvenile justice experts across the country.”
Children are routinely placed in solitary confinement, put in mechanical restraints or pepper-sprayed at Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake. These facilities incarcerate approximately 150-200 youth as young as 14 years old. Prior to state and federal raids on the facility in December 2015, staff also regularly physically abused youth in the facility, even breaking their arms and legs in some cases. While those practices may no longer be in place, horrific conditions persist. Approximately 15 to 20% percent the young residents are confined in seven by ten foot solitary confinement cells for 22 or 23 hours per day. These children are often forced to spend their only free hour of time each day outside the cell in handcuffs, chained to tables. Officers also regularly use Bear Mace and other pepper sprays against the youth, which causes them excruciating pain and impairs their breathing.
As the complaint asserts, these practices violate children’s constitutional rights, including their rights to substantive due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“If a parent locked a child in a room even for a day or sprayed them with Bear Mace or pepper spray, we would all recognize it as child abuse,” said Jessica Feierman, Juvenile Law Center’s Associate Director. “Research confirms that solitary confinement causes lasting and devastating psychological harm. Pepper spray causes excruciating pain and temporary blindness. The children of Wisconsin deserve better.”
For parents of the youth, knowing their children are experiencing this abuse is excruciating. “It is painful enough to be separated from your child,” said Meranda Davis, whose daughter is at Copper Lake and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “The detention centers are very far from home which itself is a challenge – but to know they are also experiencing this kind of ongoing abuse and mistreatment at the hands of adults in positions of authority is unbearable. These are children – this should not be happening in this country.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to put an end to these practices.
Find the complaint here:
Watch the press conference at 10:30am CST on Facebook Live:
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