Louisiana Will Pause Planned Transfer of Youth to Angola Prison
In response to a federal lawsuit, the state has agreed not to move youth to the adult prison pending a hearing next month
BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana’s Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) will pause its plan to move youth from a juvenile facility to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola. The pause comes as a result of a federal lawsuit filed last Friday by attorneys representing youth who were in imminent danger of being moved to Angola.
At an initial conference yesterday with Chief Judge Shelly Dick, the state agreed to pause its planned transfer until at least Sept. 15. A hearing on a motion to stop the transfer is scheduled for Sept. 6.
The lawsuit challenges OJJ and Gov. John Bel Edwards’ plan to move young people from the Bridge City Center for Youth juvenile facility to Angola prison. The lawsuit argues that such a move violates federal law and violates the young people’s constitutional rights.
The lawsuit comes as a result of a coalition of youth advocates, including families of youth in juvenile detention, who have been challenging the governor’s plan since July.
The following statements can be attributed as noted:
Ron Haley, Haley & Associates, co-counsel on lawsuit:
“In no circumstance should it ever be acceptable for children to be housed at the Louisiana State Penitentiary or any adult facility.”
David Utter, The Claiborne Firm, co-counsel on lawsuit:
“Louisiana continues to come up with cockamamie schemes to deal with the juvenile system by pushing kids into the adult system. Children are different. Our law allows for that, our Constitution allows for that. Until our leadership actually addresses the problems of the juvenile system, instead of hiding the ball by transferring youth to the adult system, this will continue to be a public policy disaster.”
Hector Linares, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, co-counsel on lawsuit:
“I witnessed first-hand the stress and the trauma the state’s plan has caused for our client, thinking that any day he could be moved to one of the most notorious penitentiaries in the country. We will work tirelessly to make sure no youth are transferred to Angola’s grounds.”
Gina Womack, co-founder and executive director of Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC):
“The state’s decision to move children to Angola was a clear signal that system leaders lack vision for what a truly safe society looks like. They only know how to build stronger cages to ramp up punishment and place blame onto children and families. While this is a needed move in the direction of justice, we still need to fulfill the state’s promise of transforming our youth justice system into a holistic model of support and care.”
Tammie Gregg, deputy director, ACLU National Prison Project:
“We are relieved that young people who had been scheduled for transfer to Angola get a temporary reprieve. Not only would moving forward with this transfer be unconstitutional and illegal, it would be devastating for young people — many of whom already have complex mental and behavioral health needs. The solution to their needs isn't to punish them, but to provide them with resources and support.”
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