WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Nielsen v. Watanabe, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal prisoner has a legal remedy when federal prison staff violate his Eighth Amendment rights, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Joshua Blecher-Cohen issued the following reaction:

In 1980, the Supreme Court held in Carlson v. Green that damages are available when federal prison officials violate prisoners’ constitutional rights. Today’s case—in which a prison official failed to treat Kekai Watanabe’s serious injuries following a brutal attack—falls well within that precedent. As Watanabe’s counsel noted at oral argument this morning, the availability of a constitutional remedy coheres with a long common-law tradition recognizing that prisoners are especially vulnerable to mistreatment.

CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans added this reaction:

At the Founding, the Constitution’s Framers understood that civil damage remedies were critical to redressing abuse of power by federal officers. Despite this deep-rooted constitutional history, the conservative supermajority of the Roberts Court has repeatedly closed the courthouse doors to those victimized by abuse of federal authority.

In today’s argument, the prison official in this case, supported by the Trump administration, has urged the Court to go even further and effectively overrule its decision in Carlson v. Green permitting federal prisoners to sue federal prison officials for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court should refuse to do so.

As the Founding generation understood, rights are meaningless without remedies. Eliminating the right to sue to redress wanton pain and suffering by prisoners would undermine the rule of law and make it incredibly difficult to hold prison officials accountable for constitutional violations.