Lawsuit: NY Jail’s Life-Threatening Ban on Methadone Treatment is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional
NEW YORK –The New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project today sued Jefferson County over its discriminatory and life-endangering policy of denying prescribed medication to people with opioid use disorder in the Jefferson County Jail.
Opioid use disorder is a chronic medical condition for which medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), sometimes called medication-assisted treatment (MAT), is often the only effective treatment. Without these doctor-prescribed medications, people with opioid use disorder suffer painful withdrawal and face an increased risk of relapse, overdose, and death—effects that are exacerbated for individuals recovering from opioid use disorder in jail. Incarcerated people are to die of a drug overdose in their first two weeks after release, compared to the general population.
The lawsuit names plaintiff P.G., a New York resident who currently faces imminent detention at the Jefferson County Jail. There, jail officials will end his life-sustaining treatment under a ban on methadone therapy for people with opioid use disorder.
“I have been fighting to overcome my opioid addiction for over a decade, and I have tried so many different treatments and programs along the way. Nothing was effective until I was prescribed methadone,” said plaintiff P.G. “Receiving methadone treatment has changed my life. I’m drug-free, I have a stable job, and I just purchased a home. For the first time in years, I have hope for the future, but all of that could be lost if my medication is interrupted.”
Despite scientific consensus that MOUD is the standard of care for opioid use disorder, Jefferson County denies MOUD access to those detained at the Jefferson County Jail. Access to MOUD has been the subject of litigation across the country, including in , , and . The suit filed today argues that Jefferson County Jail’s policy of prohibiting MOUD violates due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates against people with opioid use disorder, like P.G., in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state anti-discrimination laws.
“No jail can deny life-sustaining medical care to people in its custody,” said NYCLU senior staff attorney Antony Gemmell. “That’s as true for people with opioid use disorder as for those living with any other disability. Jefferson County’s blanket ban on treatment our client needs to survive is cruel and discriminatory. The ban must be lifted now.”
Forcibly ending methadone therapy subjects people with opioid use disorder to excruciating withdrawal symptoms, as well as a significantly heightened risk of relapse, overdose, and death. It disrupts their treatment plan, leading to a in continued treatment after release. It also increases the risk of relapse into active addiction: Over of patients who leave methadone treatment relapse within a year. And, most alarming, patients are nearly seven times as likely to die of drug overdose after release from jail or prison as a consequence of forced withdrawal.
“The opioid epidemic is ravaging our communities throughout the country, and jails and prisons are exacerbating this crisis by banning the basic medication necessary to treat opioid use disorder,” said Joey Longley, Equal Justice Works fellow at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “We are confident the tide is turning on this issue, and we look forward to the day that access to MOUD is not up for debate.”
In addition to Gemmell and Longley, NYCLU counsel on the case includes staff attorneys Jordan Laris Cohen and Terry Ding, deputy legal director Molly Biklen, and ACLU National Prison Project counsel includes senior staff attorney Maria Morris and Equal Justice Works fellow Joseph Longley.
You can find materials on the case here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.