So, one inmate, Garrison Johnson, an African-American, apparently grew weary of being double-celled through the years - since 1987 - and decided to do something about it. His claim: this policy is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The case, Johnson vs. California, 03-636, made its way to the Supreme Court.
In a 5-3 decision, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit Court applied the wrong standard, a deferential standard, in reviewing the policy, which would have upheld a District Court summary judgment in favor of the DOC, basically exonerating them under qualified immunity.
The proper standard, Justice O'Connor shared, for the majority, is strict scrutiny. Why? Because whenever race is at issue, the Court will typically apply a tougher standard, the toughest standard of review. And, a lesser standard is not warranted just because this particular case addresses prison inmates and their activities.
Certainly, prison gang violence is a legitimate concern, but the Court pointed out that the vast majority of state prisons, as well as the feds, get along swimmingly, without operating under a race-driven segregation system. The Fab Five, through Justice O'Connor, even went on to reiterate it's command that, "racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally." This, in response to the DOC's assertion that its policy, "should be exempt from this categorical rule because it is neutral -- i.e. because all prisoners are equally segregated."
Well, there's a point, I suppose, but Justice O. came back with an appropriate response. Ever since Brown vs. Board of Education was decided, "separate can never be equal." All righty then. Now what?
I must say that I find this case fascinating. First of all, the idea that this inmate, Mr. Johnson, had to pursue something like this, from prison, is really quite brilliant. Who would think it? Then, the Court saw the need to take it up and render a decision, albeit only to send it back to the lower courts for application of the proper standard.
Justice Stevens, one of the dissenters, presented an interesting take on things. He believes that the DOC had plenty of opportunities to justify its segregation policy throughout the winding road of this case, but for whatever reason, didn't - by application of any standard. Therefore, rather than give the department another bite of the avocado, he would just rule the policy unconstitutional. He believes that in the end, this practice will fall, no matter what they say, because, "the (DOC's) policy is based on a conclusive presumption that housing inmates of different races together creates an unacceptable risk of racial violence."
Go To Page: 1 2
