Civil and Human Rights

Brief Argues Against Mandatory Solitary on Death Row

By Marcia Coyle

 

Sixteen former corrections leaders from across the country are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to use a Virginia case to end the automatic assignment of death row inmates to solitary confinement.

 

In an amicus brief in Prieto v. Clarke, the officials, who ran prison systems in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia and other states, tell the justices, “There is no penological justification for imposing extreme isolation across the board on a population of inmates based only on their sentence, because the sentence is not predictive of how an inmate will behave in prison.”…

 

The high court on Aug. 10 called upon Virginia to respond to Prieto’s petition. The matter has been scheduled for the justices’ conference on Sept. 28. In addition to the former corrections officials, Prieto’s petition for review is supported in amicus briefs by the Constitutional Accountability Center and by professors and practitioners of psychiatry and psychology with extensive experience studying the psychological effects of imprisonment, including solitary confinement.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 24, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.