The U.S. Supreme Court’s three liberal justices expressed strong dissent on Monday after the court refused to hear an appeal from a former inmate in Illinois who spent three years in solitary confinement without exercise. The court typically takes up appeals when at least four of its nine justices agree to hear a case, but in this instance, none of the six conservative justices joined with the liberal justices to provide the necessary fourth vote. The former inmate, Michael Johnson, filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2016 accusing prison officials of violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The lower court rejected his lawsuit, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by fellow liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote an eight-page dissent stating that the lower court applied the wrong legal test to determine if Johnson’s treatment violated the Eighth Amendment. Jackson described Johnson’s solitary confinement as “unusually severe” and highlighted that he was completely deprived of exercise during his time at the Pontiac Correctional Center. Johnson, who is currently on parole, has a history of mental illness, including depression and bipolar disorder, and has attempted suicide in the past.
According to court documents, Johnson committed numerous violations of prison rules during his time at the facility, resulting in yard restrictions and limited outdoor access. He claimed that on multiple occasions, he was denied his monthly one hour of yard access, and for a year, he was not allowed any exercise. These deprivations severely impacted his physical and mental health, according to his lawsuit.
Johnson sought monetary damages, medical treatment, and other relief in his lawsuit, alleging that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by denying him exercise for an extended period. However, a federal judge rejected his claims, stating that Johnson failed to demonstrate adverse health consequences resulting from the denial of yard access. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the judge’s decision in 2022, ruling that yard privilege denials as punishment for prisoner misconduct are legal unless they arise from “utterly trivial” infractions. The court concluded that Johnson’s infractions, which included spitting on inmates and guards and throwing urine and feces, were serious.
Justice Jackson criticized the 7th Circuit’s analysis, arguing that it should have applied the Supreme Court’s test of whether prison officials displayed “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s health or safety, rather than assessing the triviality of Johnson’s infractions. She contended that there was enough evidence to support a finding that the three-year deprivation of yard time constituted unconstitutional deliberate indifference.
Johnson’s lawyer praised the liberal justices for recognizing the legal error made by the 7th Circuit but expressed disappointment that such cruelty, especially towards someone with mental illness, could be deemed acceptable by any federal judge.
