Youth and Families Sue to Halt Planned Transfer of Youth to Angola Prison
Louisiana’s plan to transfer children from Bridge City Center for Youth to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola is inhumane and unconstitutional
BATON ROUGE, La. — Attorneys filed a federal lawsuit today to prevent the transfer of youth currently detained at Bridge City Center for Youth to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, an adult facility with an environment that would place youth at imminent and grave risk of serious harm. The state’s plans follow a caused by adults within the Office of Juvenile Justice, failures that the lawsuit claims must be addressed immediately.
“There are no circumstances under which it would be safe, legal, or appropriate to house youth at a notorious adult penitentiary like Angola,” said Hector Linares of the Loyola Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Social Justice. “Nothing we have seen to this point leads us to believe this is anything but an ill-conceived and impulsive decision that will only heighten the crisis at OJJ, rather than do anything to resolve it.”
“State leadership has had ample opportunity to enact meaningful reforms that act in the best interest of our young people, but instead the state has continued to push forward unjust policies and actions that only further traumatize incarcerated youth, their families, and communities. That is why families are now having to find legal remedies for the state’s failures,” said Gina Womack, co-founder and executive director of Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children. “The move defies all common sense and best practices, and it will cause irrevocable damage to our youth and families.”
“The move to put youth in Angola ignores decades of research showing young people in adult lock-ups makes us less safe, not more,” said David Utter of The Claiborne Firm, one of the lawyers who filed the federal lawsuit today on behalf of youth and families. “The idea that Louisiana is pursuing a policy of placing youth in an adult prison in 2022 truly shocks the conscience.”
“The State of Louisiana has ignored the comprehensive problems within the juvenile justice system for decades,” said Ronald Haley, one of the attorneys representing the youth and their families. “Now, these problems have been deemed unmanageable, and the solution is to send our troubled youth to a place where they will be ignored and forgotten — thus, passing the responsibility to an institution that has been sued for numerous civil and human rights violations. This is an unacceptable response to addressing the problems with OJJ. ”
“Study after study has shown that incarceration has devastating, lifelong effects on young people — cutting them off from their families, disrupting their education, and exposing them to further trauma and violence,” said Nora Ahmed, legal director for the ACLU of Louisiana. “Transferring these children to an adult prison will only cause more pain and suffering, and deprive them of the services, programming, and other tools they need for healthy growth, education, and development. We should be helping kids to grow into productive adults, not harming them further.”
“The juvenile justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation and creating opportunities for future success to override past missteps,” said Tammie Gregg, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “We must show our youth a vision for their lives and future that is rich with promise and hope. Placing children in a notorious adult prison rife with the history of slavery and racial disparity instead paints a portrait of deep despair, failure, and limitation — certainly not the positive and achievable outcomes we hope for their future.”
The lawsuit was filed in the federal court for the Middle District of Louisiana. A hearing date is pending.
This release is available online here: /press-releases/youth-and-families-sue-halt-planned-...
The complaint is available here: /legal-document/alex-v-jon-bel-edwards-et-al-class-a...
The emergency motion for temporary restraining order is available here: /legal-document/alex-v-jon-bel-edward-et-al-plaintif...
The proposed memorandum in support of the temporary restraining order is available here: /legal-document/alex-v-jon-bel-edwards-et-al-propose...
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