Emergency Filing Details Routine Solitary Confinement for Youth at Angola Prison
Advocates are asking a federal judge to take emergency action and remove children from Angola Prison after mounting abuses
BATON ROUGE, La. — New court filings reveal for the first time that children — almost all Black boys — are being placed in routine solitary confinement for 72 hours when they are detained in the former death row building of the nation’s largest adult maximum security prison — Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola.
According to a new emergency filing in the ongoing Alex A v. Edwards lawsuit, children at Angola describe:
- Being placed in solitary confinement for 72 consecutive hours when they arrive — only being released from their cells for a few minutes to shower;
- Being locked in their cells at times for over 23 hours for punishment, only let out to shower in handcuffs and shackles; and
- Being handcuffed and shackled as punishment when they are occasionally allowed to go outside for recreation time.
The new filing also cites evidence of extreme heat in the individual cells where children are confined, which do not have windows or air conditioning. The heat index in Angola, Louisiana, has been over 88 degrees every day since May 21 — a temperature which poses a serious risk of harm to people, according to an expert on the effects of heat.
The filing asks the court to order the state to remove kids from Angola and place them in youth-appropriate non-punitive settings, and bar the state from placing children in adult carceral facilities.
“Solitary confinement is even worse for children than it is for adults, and even short periods of solitary can do irreparable harm,” said Tammie Gregg, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project. “Children in the juvenile system are legally required to receive rehabilitation, education, and treatment. But in Angola, for almost a year, the state has subjected children to punishment and abuse, depriving them of their rights and further harming already traumatized young people.”
Since October 2022 when the state transferred the first group of children to Angola, the state estimates they’ve sent between 70-80 children there — the vast majority Black boys — for 4-8 week periods. Some children have had multiple placements.
In previous declarations, children in Angola have reported solitary confinement used as a form of group punishment, being deprived of their right to an education — including failure to provide accommodations for children with disabilities, limited visits with family and loved ones, and being maced or pepper sprayed by guards.
In a September 2022 court hearing, the state’s Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) officials swore that the Angola unit was only temporary and testified that it would be offline by the spring of 2023. Spring came and went and OJJ continues to send children to Angola in the sweltering Louisiana summer.
Last week, the OJJ deputy secretary said the state might close the Angola facility by October or mid-November, depending on construction schedules. He also stated that children are being until placement at youth facilities are found.
“The state’s treatment of kids in Angola has been a series of broken promises,” said David Utter, lead counsel and executive director of the Fair Fight Initiative. “The state promised the Angola facility would close in the spring. The state promised the kids wouldn’t be held in solitary. The state promised the kids would receive their education and treatment. None of this has come to pass. We are asking the judge to take urgent action to put an end to this unprecedented mistreatment.”
The lawsuit is being brought by the ACLU National Prison Project, the ACLU of Louisiana, the Claiborne Firm and Fair Fight Initiative, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and attorneys Chris Murell and David Shanies.
Youth justice advocates — including Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children and the Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic & Center for Social Justice at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law — have condemned the decision to hold children in Angola and support the litigation challenge.
The following quotes can be attributed as noted:
Nora Ahmed, legal director, ACLU of Louisiana
“As predicted, the state’s unprecedented decision to hold children in abusive conditions inside Angola’s former death row building has resulted in almost a year of devastating effects. Kids have been held in solitary confinement, deprived of education services and family connections, and subjected to harsh living conditions. We should be helping children grow, not exposing them to unnecessary danger and irreversible harm. The state must take immediate action to remove kids from Angola and end the practice of holding children in adult facilities.”
Susan Meyers, senior staff attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center
“Despite OJJ’s stated policy of rehabilitation over punishment, the state continues to hold youth in oppressive conditions that can only be characterized as punitive. This inhumane practice must end now. Instead of locking kids up — away from their families, teachers and peers — the state should focus its resources on programs that nurture and give all children an opportunity to succeed.”
The preliminary injunction motion can be found here:
The memorandum in support of the preliminary injunction motion can be found here:
The declaration from children held in the Angola facility can be found here:
- Charles C:
- Daniel D:
The expert declaration about the effect of solitary confinement on youth can be found here:
The expert declaration about the effect of extreme heat on youth can be found here:
Prisoners' Rights
Alex A. v. Edwards
Prisoners' Rights
Alex A. v. Edwards
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