The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

It rained heavily the night before the retaking of New York's Attica Correctional Facility. A guard, William Quinn, had been killed. Negotiations had ended. The men on the D yard waited for the inevitable.

Four days earlier, on September 9, 1971, 1,281 prisoners had wrested control of Attica, taking 42 prison staffers hostage and delivering a manifesto demanding humane treatment including adequate healthcare, independent oversight, and an end to racial discrimination.

"We are men," said L.D. Barkley, one of the leaders of the revolt. "We are not beasts, and we do not intend to be beaten or driven as such."

In the early-morning light on September 13, men in D yard heard the thrum of a helicopter as it flew over Attica's 30-foot stone walls and flooded the yard below with tear gas. Steady gunfire from ground forces tore through the gas clouds, chipping the concrete and shredding the bodies of hostages and prisoners alike. Terrified, the men desperately searched for cover. They found none. One prisoner was shot 12 times at close range by two separate guns. Another lay dying of a gunshot wound when a New York state trooper stepped up to finish him off, firing buckshot directly into his neck. A paramedic later testified he saw a trooper execute a prisoner begging for help at point-blank range. State troopers and corrections officers fired nearly 400 shots, killing 39 people — 29 prisoners and 10 prison staff — and wounding 89 more.

The surviving prisoners were corralled and moved to A yard, stripped, and ordered to lie face down in the mud. If they moved, troopers beat them and threatened to shoot them where they lay. Hours later, still naked, they were ordered to stand and run, hands above their heads, through what judges would later refer to as the "gauntlet" — a tunnel leading inside that was lined with troopers and corrections officers. They struck prisoners with clubs and hurled racist epithets. Many prisoners stumbled to the ground and ended up crawling on pavement littered with shattered glass. Once inside, officers threatened some prisoners with castration. Others they forced to play Russian roulette with live ammunition or lined up against the wall in mock executions.

It took nearly three decades for the surviving D yard prisoners to reach a final resolution on their claims that those nightmarish days and nights constituted "cruel and unusual punishments," in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In the intervening period, a series of new laws and legal standards changed the landscape for incarcerated plaintiffs. The Supreme Court introduced one standard in 1976, further codified in 1994, that prison officials violate the Constitution only when they are "deliberately indifferent" to a prisoner's suffering. And in 1986, the court granted broad protections to law enforcement, as long as their actions were not "malicious and sadistic." Guards, the justices found, often had to make decisions "in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance."

One set of claims, over the failure of New York's corrections commissioner, Russell Oswald; Attica's warden, Vincent Mancusi; and other senior officials then in charge to provide adequate medical care and prevent retaliatory violence by officers after the uprising was quelled, was decided on the new deliberate-indifference standard. Those claims settled in 2000 without state officials admitting any wrongdoing; damages were capped at $10,000 for anyone not subject to torture, serial beatings, or gunshot wounds.

Another set of claims, covering the planning and execution of the retaking itself, was decided in 1991 on the malicious-and-sadistic standard. The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the standard had been met, as defendants were responsible for the "wanton infliction of pain and suffering for the purposes of 'maliciously and sadistically' punishing rebellious prisoners."

The judges of the 2nd Circuit disagreed. Aspects of the plan, such as declining to give prisoners an ultimatum before opening fire or allowing correctional officers to participate in the retaking "despite the extreme hostility the officers bore toward the prisoners as a result of the takeover," might constitute negligence or even indifference, Judge Jon O. Newman wrote. But that was not enough, without evidence that those elements were designed to wantonly inflict pain. "Tactical decisions needed to be made," he wrote, and courts cannot substitute their own judgment for that of law enforcement officials on the ground.

One of the most infamous campaigns of state violence against incarcerated people in US history did not, in the eyes of the court, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

A lone prisoner victory

Senior corrections officials agree that physical force is sometimes necessary to maintain order and safety for both staff members and the prisoners in their care. If prisoners are harming themselves or another person, for example, quick intervention can be critical.

Training documents Business Insider obtained from 37 state departments of correction show that officers in most states are guided to use the minimum amount of force necessary to maintain order. Many departments train officers on de-escalation techniques meant to defuse violence before force is necessary and instruct them to use force "only as a last resort."

But in the 50 years since the Attica uprising, many corrections departments have failed to check staff violence when it tips into excess. Government oversight reports and journalistic investigations over the years have documented systemic abuse in multiple state prison systems: guards brutalizing incarcerated people in New York state, a pattern of sexual assault committed by prison staff in California, and a culture in Alabama prisons in which "unlawful uses of force" were common, including two beating deaths by staff in 2019 alone.

In the face of these institutional failures, federal courts have declined to step into the breach. BI analyzed a sample of nearly 1,500 Eighth Amendment lawsuits, including every appeals court case with an opinion we could locate filed from 2018 to 2022 citing the relevant precedent-setting Supreme Court cases and standards. Of these, 208 cases involved claims of excessive force.

In analyzing these cases, BI found that courts have often sanctioned extreme acts of violence by guards against prisoners. Dozens of plaintiffs in BI's sample said they were beaten while immobilized in restraints. Another dozen said they were subjected to racist abuse or threatened with retaliatory violence. Others said they were placed in life-threatening chokeholds or hit with plastic or rubber bullets shot at such high velocity they cracked femurs and skulls. Multiple people said they were sexually abused by prison staff, including two while in restraints. All of these plaintiffs lost their cases.

Judges dismissed many excessive-force claims under strict administrative requirements imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a 1996 federal law designed to curb "frivolous" prisoner lawsuits. Judges dismissed others for failing to meet the malicious-and-sadistic standard, or due to doctrines that protect law enforcement officials like prison guards. Judges rarely questioned the authority of prison staff to determine when a use of force was justified.

Sixty-one of the excessive-force cases, almost a third, settled. Only one of the excessive-force plaintiffs, Jordan Branstetter, won his case in court.

In that case, Branstetter said a corrections officer at a state prison in Hawaii had viciously assaulted him for nearly 20 minutes, punching him in the back of the head as he curled into a fetal position on the floor, then kneeing him in the back, breaking two ribs, and choking him.

The Hawaii Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not respond to requests for comment.

Less than a third of the cases reached settlements — far less than is typical for civil suits filed in the outside world. Of the excessive-force settlements made public, two were for more than $1 million, but the typical award was about $9,000. None of those cases involved an admission of wrongdoing. Whether for technical reasons or because they viewed the use of force as necessary, federal courts across the country offered impunity to officers accused of excessive force the vast majority of the time.

In September 2022, Judge James Jones of the District Court for the Western District of Virginia ruled that officers at Virginia's Red Onion State Prison were justified in deploying a dog to attack Cornelius Lightfoot. Two officers, thinking Lightfoot had a weapon, tried to frisk him and, when he resisted, tackled him to the ground; a handler then allowed his dog to tear open the flesh of Lightfoot's thigh. An incident report showed that Lightfoot was unarmed by the time the dog attacked; he said in his complaint that the officers had acted in retaliation, taunting him just before the attack that the dog would get his "grievance-filing ass."

The officers said they thought Lightfoot had posed "a serious threat to staff safety." Jones reviewed surveillance footage and determined that Lightfoot was resisting the officers as they tried to subdue him and dismissed the case, ruling that "no reasonable jury could find that any of the defendants used physical force or the canine 'maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.'"

The UCLA law professor Sharon Dolovich discussed the malicious-and-sadistic standard in a 2022 Harvard Law Review article. "That this standard is intrinsically defendant friendly," she wrote, "is undeniable."

Jones, and every other judge mentioned in this story, declined to comment on the record for this story or did not respond to queries. Kyle Gibson, a spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Corrections, declined to comment on the Lightfoot case but said that the agency had "zero tolerance for excessive force or abuse" and that violators "are disciplined according to agency operating procedures."

At about the same time as Jones' ruling, judges with the 5th Circuit appeals court ruled that five officers at a Texas prison known as Coffield Unit were justified when they pepper-sprayed a prisoner who had refused to leave his cell, then put him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground. The prisoner, Robert Byrd, was serving a life sentence for capital murder; as he was splayed under the weight of four officers, a fifth officer smashed his outstretched arm with a riot baton, breaking a bone.

While officers later photographed a wooden shank they said was recovered from Byrd's cell, an internal prison investigation determined that Byrd was restrained and unarmed when he was struck and that at least one officer, the one wielding the baton, had deployed excessive force. Still, the appeals court decided that even if Byrd was unarmed, he was violently resisting, so force was "obviously necessary." All the officers had deployed force, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority opinion, "in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline."

Amanda Hernandez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said the video footage of the incident was key to the state's case because it showed a "'hostile, combative, utterly noncompliant' prisoner who was committed to violent resistance."

"We are to accord prison officials 'wide-ranging deference,'" Duncan, one of the 5th Circuit judges who heard Byrd's case, wrote, quoting case precedent. "The Supreme Court has told judges not to micro-manage the force necessary to quell such volatile situations."

Judges dismissed other cases on technicalities.

In August 2022, D'Andre White, a prisoner at Ionia Correctional Facility in Michigan, filed suit claiming that, earlier that year, he'd been shackled by his hands and feet in a bathroom stall during a court appearance when he asked a guard to uncuff one hand so he could more easily use the toilet. The guard refused, White said, then grew irate at how much time White was taking. White said the guard then grabbed him by the throat, slammed him to the ground, kicked him repeatedly, and dragged him to the court's holding cell.

Robert Jonker, a judge in the District Court for the Western District of Michigan, ruled against White, finding that he had not fulfilled his prison's internal grievance process before filing suit, as required by the PLRA.

The Michigan Department of Corrections did not respond to requests for comment.

Two years later, in 2024, Judge Christine O'Hearn of the District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case of Tyrone Jacobs, a federal prisoner who said that four officers had retaliated against him for filing complaints against the prison. He said the officers handcuffed him, pulled him from his cell, and, out of view of surveillance cameras, slammed his head against the wall and dragged his face along the concrete. Jacobs said one officer screamed, "I will fucking kill you."

Because Jacobs had missed a deadline to appeal his internal prison grievance, O'Hearn decided in favor of the defendants.

A 'good-faith effort' to restore discipline

In BI's sample of excessive-force lawsuits, one facility stood out: California State Prison, Sacramento, popularly known as New Folsom. The vast complex surrounded by steel fences and guard towers was built in the 1980s, just across from the Gothic granite tower of Old Folsom, the site of Johnny Cash's legendary 1968 live album. The new facility has a reputation for violence. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data shows corrections officers there deployed force at a far higher rate than any other California prison over the past decade. In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, New Folsom officers used force — fists, baton strikes, pepper spray, or high-velocity less-lethal ammunition — in nearly 700 documented incidents. That's nearly twice a day. By comparison, officers at the California City Correctional Facility, a high-security facility in Southern California that was recently decommissioned, used force 192 times — less than four times a week.

Violence by guards at New Folsom sparked three complaints of excessive force in BI's sample; all of the plaintiffs lost.

The allegations contained in the legal complaints, together with evidence from state oversight reports and criminal cases against former officers there, hint at a corrections culture in which casual violence prevails and retaliatory cruelty often goes unchecked.

Terri Hardy, a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, emphasized that in each California case mentioned in this story, the department prevailed, and said the department "takes every allegation of employee misconduct seriously."

One complaint describes an incident that took place in February 2015, in New Folsom's C yard, where a man named Tshombe Kelley, who was serving 52 years for murder, approached a group of officers to ask a question. When he and another prisoner didn't immediately comply with an order to back away and drop to the ground, incident reports show, officers swiftly reacted. One officer, who said he saw Kelley clench a fist, blasted him in the face with pepper spray. Kelley said he reeled back and stumbled to the ground; officers said he again failed to comply with an order to lie flat. Two other officers then deployed physical force, an incident report shows; Kelley said they punched him, kicked him, and dragged him in the dirt. Transcribed surveillance video describes the officers wrestling Kelley into handcuffs and pinning him down with their knees on his shoulder and back, as he pushed against their combined weight.

An officer heard him plead, "I can't breathe."

Instead of easing up, officers deployed a spit mask, a cotton bag that covers the face and head. Blinded and panicked, his throat burning from the pepper spray, Kelley later said, he lost consciousness.

Kelley sued and lost. Officers said in court filings that they feared Kelley and another prisoner might attack them; they said Kelley had refused a direct order to hit the ground and resisted their attempts to restrain him, and only one recalled hearing Kelley say he couldn't breathe. Surveillance video showed that as Kelley was pinned down — and struggling to breathe — he arched his back and thrashed his legs. Carolyn Delaney, a magistrate judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of California, found that the officers' use of force was necessary to combat Kelley's "ongoing resistance."

Judges also sided with guards who injured prisoners they didn't perceive to be resisting.

In October 2020, less than a year after Kelley's case was dismissed, a prisoner named Nathanael Carter Jr. noticed a fight erupt in the New Folsom B yard, according to his civil suit. Guards ordered all prisoners to the ground. Carter immediately complied, dropping to his stomach, arms spread-eagled. From the guard tower, an officer fired two less-lethal rounds from his state-issued 40 mm launcher into the crowded yard, according to multiple incident reports. Both shots missed the men fighting. But one round smashed into Carter's skull, leaving a hematoma the size of an egg and triggering migraines, blackouts, and memory loss.

Like Kelley, Carter lost his case. He'd argued in court filings that he was an innocent bystander who was shot despite "getting on the ground following instructions." The guard said he'd hit Carter by accident, and Dennis Cota, an Eastern District magistrate judge, ruled that the use of force related to "the prison's legitimate penological interest in maintaining security and order."

In more than a dozen cases in BI's sample, judges found that the question of whether a use of force was malicious and sadistic was immaterial, as long as officers were doing their job.

Federal courts grant broad protections to law-enforcement officers for actions taken "under the color of law" — in the line of duty.

That's how one California prisoner's case failed before the District Court for the Eastern District of California. In his complaint, the prisoner said that six corrections officers at a federal prison in Atwater in April 2021 threw him to the ground, handcuffed him, and slammed his head against the wall before dragging him to a holding cell where they physically and sexually assaulted him while calling him racist slurs.

Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone recommended dismissal of the case, finding that any remedy the court might impose "risks interference with prison administration." District Judge Jennifer Thurston agreed and dismissed the case.

Ben O'Cone, a spokesperson for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, did not address the Atwater case but said the agency "does not tolerate excessive use of force" and thoroughly investigates all allegations of employee misconduct.

Cases against corrections officers run into another set of challenges under the doctrine of "qualified immunity." Unless a court has previously found that a particular use of force constituted a constitutional violation, a defendant is given the benefit of the doubt under the doctrine. The Supreme Court standard, established in 1967 and refined in 1982, shields public officials from civil liability when they're legitimately acting in the line of duty. The standard has drawn national attention as an obstacle to police accountability. In prisons, BI has found, qualified immunity has also protected corrections officers who have been accused of excessive force.

That's how things played out in court in the wake of a December 2016 incident at the Darrington Unit, now called Memorial Unit, in East Texas. That day, a prisoner named Marquieth Jackson threw water at a corrections officer passing by his solitary-confinement cell. Incensed, the officer brandished his pepper spray and threatened Jackson. He then spun and blasted a prisoner in a nearby cell in the face at point-blank range.

Why he did so is contested: The officer, Tajudeen Alamu, said that after he was doused with water, he ran for cover by the cell of the other prisoner, Prince McCoy Sr. Alamu said that McCoy threw something that hit him in the face — court documents later identified it as a wad of toilet paper — and that his mind then "went blank" and he reacted instinctively. McCoy denied throwing anything and said Alamu attacked him in anger "for no reason at all."

Alamu did not respond to requests for comment by phone and mail.

After losing at the district court level, McCoy appealed and got a rare finding from the judges of the 5th Circuit. They decided that Alamu had been "malicious and sadistic" in his use of force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. But after finding that no previous case in the 5th Circuit had established that pepper spraying a man confined in his cell constituted excessive force, they granted Alamu qualified immunity.

"How could any guard not know that an unprovoked use of pepper spray is unlawful?" Gregg Costa, one of the appeals court judges, wrote in a furious dissent. "Yet the majority concludes it would have been reasonable for a guard to think the law allowed him to gratuitously blind an inmate."

The other judges' reading of the qualified-immunity standard, Costa wrote, "ensures vindication of the most egregious constitutional violations."

McCoy appealed, and the case made it to a jury, which again found for the defendant. But the jury disagreed with the 5th Circuit on one critical point: The pepper-spray deployment, they found, had not been malicious and sadistic.

A culture of silence

This pattern of rejection by the courts is especially devastating to prisoners, given how hard it is for them to file suit in the first place.

For nearly 30 years, thanks to the PLRA, any prisoner who wants to file an excessive-force claim has to first file an internal grievance — a petition to prison administrators to address violations committed by their staff. But it can be dangerous for prisoners to report an incident involving the very officers who control every aspect of their daily lives. The cases BI reviewed contain multiple claims of retaliation against prisoners who decide to complain.

One complaint, filed by a New Folsom prisoner named Christopher Elliott, offers a window into the ordeal prisoners often face when they seek redress.

In January 2021, Elliott tried to raise an excessive-force complaint, filing a grievance that said a corrections officer had shoved him onto the concrete floor of his cell and jumped on him while his legs were shackled and his arms were cuffed behind his back. Medical records show a laceration on his left hand, which he said got pinned behind him in metal cuffs, spattering blood across the floor.

After Elliott filed the grievance, he said in a court filing, the corrections officer returned to his cell to issue a threat: If Elliott didn't stop pursuing the grievance, the officer would force Elliott to perform oral sex on him — and order Elliott killed.

When asked about allegations of violent retaliation by prison staff, Hardy, the California corrections spokesperson, said the department had "fundamentally reformed" its approach to investigating allegations of staff misconduct and had deployed body cameras and audio surveillance to "create an environment in which incarcerated and supervised persons are comfortable raising concerns without fear of retaliation."

Akiva Israel, a transgender woman who was incarcerated at another California men's prison, Mule Creek, filed an internal grievance in April 2021 accusing an officer named J. Padilla of threatening to sexually assault her. She said other gay and transgender prisoners immediately warned her to be careful: Reporting the officer might invite even worse consequences.

Israel later filed a civil complaint saying that a week after she submitted the internal grievance, officers handcuffed her and brought her to a prison administrator's office where they hurled transphobic and homophobic slurs and again threatened her with sexual violence. "You fuck with Padilla," she quoted one officer saying, "You fuck with me."

She said the officers then marched her to solitary, stripped her naked, threw her to the floor, and kicked her in the head. They then yanked her off the ground, she said, suspending her by the metal cuffs, causing "excruciating agony," and slammed her to the concrete floor.

Kimberly Mueller, a judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of California, dismissed Israel's case without prejudice on a technicality. Handling her case without an attorney, she had missed a deadline to file an amended complaint while being treated for breast cancer.

In Elliott's case, Kendall Newman, a magistrate judge in the same court, also recommended dismissal on technicalities: Elliott might have a case, Newman said, but he had not signed his complaint filing and his claims of retaliation were unsupported by evidence.

It has become so rare for the courts to find constitutional violations that the wins send shock waves through prison communities. On October 17, 2022, William Shubb, a senior judge in the Eastern District, sentenced a former New Folsom guard, Arturo Pacheco, to 12 years in prison for knocking the legs out from under a handcuffed 65-year-old prisoner who landed face-first on a concrete walkway, breaking his jaw. The prisoner, Ronnie Price, suffered a pulmonary embolism and died two days later.

In the lead-up to Pacheco's sentencing, a New Folsom prisoner named Mario Gonzalez fired off an urgent letter to Shubb, saying Pacheco and another indicted officer "know more than what they've shared." He said many more staff there should be prosecuted, including corrections officers who he said "cuff us and beat us" and lieutenants who he said had lied in incident reports to cover up excessive force.

In an earlier civil suit, Gonzalez said he'd reported to his prison psychologist that a group of officers was committing "illegal beatings of fellow inmates" and that he feared for his safety. Soon after, he wrote, four officers cornered him in his cell: One put Gonzalez, who then used a walker, into a headlock, wrenching his spine backward until he feared it would snap. Three others kicked him in the ribs, torso, back, and groin, then scooped urine and feces into his mouth.

"My back was broken. My ribs were broken," Gonzalez wrote to Shubb, injuries that he had documented in his civil suit and in prison grievances. "I have night terrors at least 4-5 times a week. I also cannot get that piss and shit taste out of my mouth." He said he reported the incident but believed no internal investigation had taken place. His case was dismissed repeatedly over six years while he was in prison, most of the time without a lawyer. He wrote to Cota, the Eastern District magistrate judge, alleging that officers were retaliating against him for being outspoken by locking him in solitary confinement and inciting fellow prisoners to attack him.

"I pray you please take action cause my life is endangered," he wrote in one letter.

Still, his complaint languished. Only after Gonzalez got a new lawyer and was released from prison in the fall of 2023 did Cota allow his case to continue. (The case remains ongoing.)

The California state prison system has been under official scrutiny for decades, springing from a 1995 decision by a federal judge finding a pattern of egregious violence perpetrated by guards at Pelican Bay State Prison, some 380 miles northwest of New Folsom, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. California prison officials, the judges found, "permitted and condoned a pattern of using excessive force, all in conscious disregard of the serious harm that these practices inflict."

It remains the only case decided under the malicious-and-sadistic standard to spark significant prison reforms in the state.

The court mandated a suite of new oversight mechanisms, including the appointment of a special master and a new use-of-force action plan.

Nearly a decade later, the special master issued a scathing evaluation: California prison officials had deliberately misled the court by filing false or misleading reports. The report found that administrators had endorsed a "code of silence" — an informal but aggressively policed policy under which corrections officers refuse to report misconduct to avoid being labeled "a rat."

The special master found California's entire system for investigating and disciplining officers accused of excessive force was "broken to the core." The court ordered a new plan, which included direct oversight and annual reports from the state's inspector general.

The special master's mandate has long since expired. Yet the inspector general's annual reports continue to identify severe deficiencies in how California prisons deploy and investigate the use of force.

In 2023, the most recent year examined, the inspector general reviewed 730 use-of-force incidents and identified 225 that appeared to involve staff misconduct, including 82 incidents where staff may have deployed excessive force. Prison officials initially failed to refer nearly half of those 225 incidents to internal affairs for investigation, including incidents involving the potential use of excessive force and those involving the potential withholding of medical treatment or failure to follow protocol.

The inspector general found that officers repeatedly failed to turn on their body cameras, sometimes wrote misleading or blatantly untrue use-of-force incident reports, or failed to report deployments of force at all. In the vast majority of cases, supervisors rubber-stamped the use of force as acceptable, often without interviewing the prisoner in question or reviewing all of the available video evidence. Even after the inspector general's investigators identified cases that appeared to involve excessive force, they found that prison officials sometimes declined to open internal affairs investigations into the officers involved.

These patterns had been long documented. In each of the five years preceding 2023, the inspector general found that California prison staff appeared to have violated use-of-force policies in at least 40% of the hundreds of incidents the office reviewed. Each year, the office also found significant deficiencies in how managers investigated use-of-force incidents — and found that supervisors regularly declined to take action against officers who deployed "unreasonable force."

If the courts were expected to provide a backstop, they failed.

Over the same five years in BI's sample, no federal judge found for the plaintiff in a single excessive-force claim filed by a California prisoner.

Over the past decade, Minnesota's prisons have experienced officer assaults, lockdowns, and chronic staffing shortages. They have faced allegations of substandard medical care, inhumane living conditions, sexual abuse by guards, and retaliation against prison employees who have sounded the alarm. "It's a very sick system," one former lieutenant told Business Insider. Officers "have each other's back," she said, "even if that means lying."

Within this troubled system, officers and prisoners said one facility has stood out: Minnesota Correctional Facility–Rush City.

A former Rush City therapist described it as one of the state's most dangerous prisons, and a former corrections officer there recalled near-daily fights. "The staff up there are a bunch of cowboys," a former Rush City lieutenant said. Officers there "go hands-on much quicker than they would at any other facility," he added. "It was a culture that was just ingrained from the day it opened."

The first lieutenant, who spent a year at Rush City, described the place as a "time bomb."

The routine brutality earned Rush City a moniker: Gladiator School.

Despite the frequent violence, Dario Bonga, a longtime Rush City prisoner, said one assault, in particular, had stuck with him. It was the day a prisoner bashed in James Vandevender's head.

Bonga was one of six prisoners and officers who said the attack was so brutal they still remembered it over a decade later.

A methodical attack

On June 8, 2012, Vandevender, then 25, had only a few months left on his yearlong sentence over assaulting someone during a fight. He and Bonga were working that day in the prison's industry area, folding balloons, when Bonga was startled from his work by a loud thud. A prisoner had swung at Vandevender's head with a four-by-four wooden post. Bonga watched in shock as the man, later identified as Mark Latimer, continued his methodical attack.

Surveillance footage obtained by BI corroborates Bonga's account. It shows Latimer pick up an unsecured wooden board from a shelf in the woodworking area, drop it, and walk away. A few seconds later he's back, and this time he quickly pulls out a wooden post. No officers are visible in the video; the unguarded woodshop wasn't operating that day.

In the surveillance footage, Latimer saunters several hundred feet across the workshop with the four-by-four. No one tries to stop him — no corrections officer; no one from Minncor Industries, the corrections division that oversees prison labor — as he approaches Vandevender's worktable, hoists the post over his shoulder, and begins to swing.

Only after the sixth blow — after Vandevender has collapsed onto the table, bleeding from his nose and mouth, and after Latimer has slipped into the crowd of panicked men — do officers come running.

Later, at the hospital, a doctor told Vandevender's mother, Peggy Vandevender, that her son had a 20 to 30% chance of survival. He spent 45 days in a coma and woke up 40 pounds lighter. His face was numb, and he couldn't speak or read. He thought he had a prison softball game that weekend, not processing that he had been in the hospital for a month and half.

Years later, the effects of Vandevender's traumatic brain injury persist. Tests indicated a decline in cognitive function. Seizures have forced him to take epilepsy medication. Deep depression sent him in search of meth, which landed him at Rush City again.

When Vandevender arrived back, about four years later, Bonga thought he was seeing a ghost. No one thought he could have survived that beating.

'Unacceptable' risks

In 2018, Vandevender filed a lawsuit alleging that prison officials, by failing to protect him from the attack that day, had violated his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from "cruel and unusual punishments." His attorneys argued that officials had been aware of the risks: For several months before the assault, officials had specifically instructed prisoners to pile and store the boards in an unsecured area that was accessible to prisoners, against prison policy. Vandevender's complaint said that in the weeks before the attack, a prisoner had warned a guard that "the open pile of wood was a threat to the health and safety of all of the inmate population and could be used as a weapon against him and other inmates." The prisoner said the guard told him it was none of his business and "not to worry about it."

There was reason for concern: Vandevender's complaint cited an incident in which, he said, one Rush City prisoner had assaulted another with the wooden handle of a pitchfork, "causing serious head injuries." When, six years after Vandevender's assault, a corrections officer named Joseph Gomm was killed by a prisoner wielding a sledgehammer taken from a work area at another Minnesota prison, Gomm's family sued, alleging a "long-standing culture" in which Minncor's revenue was prioritized over safety.

"Had there been more staff, had there been more cameras out there, absolutely Officer Gomm would not have been killed," a former Rush City corrections officer told BI. "Same thing with Vandevender."

Aaron Swanum, an information officer for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, said that among Minncor staff, only production supervisors are required to receive security training. At Rush City, he said, there is just one.

After reviewing the circumstances surrounding Vandevender's attack for his case, Tim Gravette, a corrections consultant, concluded that Rush City staffers were negligent for failing to properly follow state correction policies, and that if they had, Latimer couldn't have attacked Vandevender in the way he did. "I find the lack of work material accountability to be unacceptable practice," he wrote.

Paul Schnell, Minnesota's corrections commissioner, said that while he couldn't comment on Vandevender's case because it predated his tenure, "obviously we want to be in a place where we're trying to take the steps to keep people safe."

He said that since he became commissioner in 2019, he'd established an Office of Professional Accountability to address employee complaints, revived an independent ombudsman office to address internal grievances, started a body-camera pilot program, and, in the wake of Gomm's murder, increased the number of staff and cameras in the industry area of the prison where he died. The department confirmed that there have been no such changes at Rush City.

Whether a prisoner wins or loses a lawsuit, Schnell said, "we're certainly looking at our practices no matter what."

He said that "everything's incremental" when it comes to corrections reform.

"The challenge is that we were struggling to get our staffing complement up in general, so while we may have put more bodies in Minncor, we were shorter elsewhere," he said. "It's always give-and-take."

A guardrail against cruelty

From its beginnings, the Eighth Amendment was understood as a guardrail against unabashed cruelty; by the mid-20th century it was also being used to push back against inhumane prison conditions, violence, and medical neglect. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, as mass incarceration was on the rise, the Supreme Court issued a series of opinions that shifted the focus away from these underlying abuses to the question of prison officials' intent.

In practice, these decisions made it difficult for prisoners to assert their constitutional rights.

One of those pivotal cases was 1994's Farmer v. Brennan. The court unanimously ruled that prison officials were liable for Eighth Amendment violations only if they acted with "deliberate indifference" to a prisoner's suffering. To meet this standard, Justice David Souter wrote, prisoners must show that officers were aware of and disregarded a serious risk of harm, saying this approach "comports best with the text of the Amendment." Officials were now on the hook only if they had the knowledge that a particular harm would occur if they didn't act.

While Souter said a court could infer awareness if the risk was obvious, the standard still required incarcerated plaintiffs to marshal proof of something ineffable — a prison official's inner thoughts.

Business Insider's analysis of a sample of nearly 1,500 Eighth Amendment cases — including every appeals court case with an opinion we could locate filed from 2018 to 2022 citing the relevant precedent-setting Supreme Court cases and standards — shows that mindset has become an extremely difficult standard to meet. For the vast majority of prisoners in BI's database who filed their suits without counsel, proving mindset can be almost impossible — 85% of their cases decided under the deliberate indifference standard lost.

All of the remaining pro se cases settled, often for modest amounts.

"However obvious the circumstances, people may at times remain oblivious," Sharon Dolovich, a law professor at UCLA, wrote in an anthology on the Eighth Amendment. "And when this is true of prison officials, no constitutional liability may lie, however 'soul-chilling' the conditions."

Deference to officials, coupled with "the long and troubling history of unspeakable maltreatment against incarcerated people by the very actors charged with their protection," she wrote, has created a landscape where "the power that prison officials have over incarcerated persons is sure to be abused."

In BI's sample, a few attorneys successfully proved mindset, sometimes by obtaining explicit circumstantial evidence, such as email exchanges introduced in the case of one Illinois prisoner that show prison healthcare providers floated the possibility of sending him to hospice care after his oncologist recommended treatment that would cost $15,000 a month. But such cases were rare.

Few sitting judges would comment to BI about the deliberate-indifference standard; some did not respond to interview requests, while others declined to comment. One who did, Lawrence Piersol, a federal judge in South Dakota, decided a case under the standard filed in 2020 by a prisoner named Jason Dunkelberger. While incarcerated at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, Dunkelberger said, the tips of his fingers were severed by a metal shear in the prison machine shop that he'd never been trained to use; in a deposition, he said he was told he'd be sent to solitary if he refused the assignment, given to him by a fellow prisoner put in charge by the machine shop's supervisor. He said he waited 90 minutes before being sent to the hospital, where the fingers were amputated.

The South Dakota Department of Corrections did not respond to requests for comment.

In his lawsuit, Dunkelberger argued that prison staff had violated his constitutional rights by failing to keep him safe. Because the directive to use the machine had come from a prisoner, and not an officer, Piersol ruled that officials couldn't be considered deliberately indifferent. Piersol said his decision spoke for itself, but he agreed to comment on Eighth Amendment cases generally.

"It's difficult for a prisoner to succeed," Piersol said. "But sometimes there are some decent settlements."

Dunkelberger's claim couldn't meet that high bar. Vandevender's didn't either.

Donovan Frank, a federal judge with the District of Minnesota, granted the prison officials qualified immunity in the Vandevender case, finding that he had failed to prove they "were subjectively aware of a substantial risk posed by the wooden boards." Even if they should have known that leaving them unsecured violated Rush City's tool policy, Frank wrote, that "does not satisfy the subjective-culpability requirement."

He dismissed the case before Vandevender could take discovery.

After Vandevender appealed, the 8th Circuit agreed with Frank, deciding that Vandevender was the victim of a surprise attack and that corrections officers therefore could not have violated his rights by failing to protect him. The court determined that the prior assault with a wooden pitchfork handle hadn't signaled a "pervasive risk."

When BI spoke with Mark Bradford, Vandevender's attorney, two years after he lost the case, he seemed defeated.

"I'm not sure what more you could possibly do to show deliberate indifference," he said. "It really is a troubling standard that the 8th Circuit has employed here."

Appended to the appeals court's judgment is a separate opinion, authored by Judge Jane Kelly, who wrote that she concurred only because she was bound by 8th Circuit precedent. "Our caselaw may set the bar too high for the typical inmate to sufficiently plead prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm in a case like this one."

'The easiest lie to tell'

The Eighth Amendment cases BI reviewed include claims of untreated cancers and heart disease, retaliatory beatings, sexual assaults, limb amputations, and prisoners wasting away in squalid cells littered with feces and dead flies. There was a New York teenager who said he was put in a vermin-infested cell in late 2021 where he was attacked by a bat and bitten by a poisonous spider, an Arizona prisoner who said in 2020 he was given only Tylenol to treat a broken jaw, and a Michigan man who filed a complaint in 2019 saying his eyesight deteriorated because prison doctors refused to conduct cataract surgery. Again and again, courts dismissed these cases, finding that prisoners had failed to meet the deliberate-indifference standard. The standard introduced three decades ago by the Supreme Court — and its interpretation by federal courts in the years since — has created formidable obstacles to accountability in this country's prisons.

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry did not comment on the broken-jaw claim but said that Gov. Katie Hobbs had appointed a new corrections director, Ryan Thornell, in January 2023 "to make needed changes to the correctional system" and that he was ensuring "high-quality, patient-centered care and wellness are becoming standard practice." The New York and Michigan corrections departments did not respond to requests for comment.

Of the cases in BI's sample, 1,361 were argued under the deliberate-indifference standard. Only 10 plaintiffs prevailed in court; another 164 cases settled without the prison admitting liability. All 10 of the successful plaintiffs were among the minority in the sample who were represented by counsel.

David Fathi, the director of the National Prison Project at the ACLU, told BI the standard has been "an enormous barrier to justice for incarcerated people." If prisoners encounter conditions that are "inhumane, unhealthy, dangerous, or even lethal," he argued, "that should be enough to violate the Eighth Amendment — you shouldn't have to go looking for someone who was thinking bad thoughts."

David Shapiro, the executive director of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, has litigated dozens of Eighth Amendment cases on behalf of prisoners.

"I didn't know this person was going to get attacked by another incarcerated person," he said of defenses under the deliberate-indifference standard. "I didn't know that this person was having chest pains because they were experiencing a heart attack."

As long as prison officials assert that they didn't know about the risk, he said, a federal court will rarely find an Eighth Amendment violation.

"What is the easiest lie to tell?" he said. "I didn't know."

'A dark and evil world'

For generations, the federal courts took a mostly hands-off approach to conditions in America's prisons. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, as judges began to issue Eighth Amendment rulings that secured key rights for prisoners.

In 1970, for instance, a federal judge put every Arkansas prison under court order, calling the state system "a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world." Six years later, another federal judge found prisons in Alabama "wholly unfit for human habitation" in violation of the Constitution.

About this time, a Texas prisoner named J.W. Gamble sued his facility over inadequate medical care, arguing that officers had failed to treat his intense pain after a 600-pound cotton bale fell on him during a work assignment. While the Supreme Court found that Gamble's constitutional rights hadn't been violated, the 1976 decision, written by Thurgood Marshall, established that prisoners have a right to medical care under the Eighth Amendment.

"Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,'" Marshall wrote. "An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met."

It was a consequential decision. It was also, fatefully, the court's introduction of the phrase "deliberate indifference."

"There it sat," John Boston, the former director of the Prisoners' Rights Project of the New York City Legal Aid Society, said, "extremely vulnerable to a more conservative court coming along and trying to define it downward in ways disadvantageous to prisoners."

That shift occurred quickly. As President Ronald Reagan ramped up the war on drugs, legislators from both parties, committed to a tough-on-crime agenda, began to pass a raft of criminal-justice measures. The impact of these policies is now well known. In less than 30 years the country's penal population grew sixfold to a peak of more than 2 million, leaving the US incarcerating more people than any other country.

The critical Farmer v. Brennan case came when Dee Farmer, a transgender woman, filed a claim saying federal prison officials had failed to protect her from sexual assault. In an interview, she described how, after being raped by another prisoner at knifepoint, she was sent to segregation for over a year.

When Farmer won her case before the Supreme Court, it was hailed as a major victory for transgender rights. The decision also cemented the current deliberate-indifference standard.

Farmer's lead attorney, the ACLU's foremost prison expert, Elizabeth Alexander, argued that the standard should hinge on what officials had the professional responsibility to know. The solicitor general, Drew Days III, disagreed, contending that officials should be held liable only for risks they were aware of. "Petitioner's 'should have known' approach ignores the 'deliberateness' requirement of the 'deliberate indifference' standard," he wrote in his brief.

The Supreme Court agreed with Days, finding that officials were liable only if they personally knew of and disregarded the risk, regardless of the gravity of the harm to the prisoner.

Some issued warnings at the time. Michelle Alexander, the noted civil-rights lawyer and author, who was then a clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, suggested that the majority opinion "would allow a prison official to argue to the jury that although a particular risk of harm was plainly obvious, and a reasonable prison official would have been aware of it, he wasn't."

In his own concurring opinion, Blackmun described the new standard as fundamentally misguided. "A punishment is simply no less cruel or unusual because its harm is unintended," he wrote.

Alexander, in a recent email, described the decision as one of many during that period that created what she called "unconscionable obstacles to meaningful relief for people ensnared by our criminal injustice system."

Vandevender is one of hundreds of prisoners in BI's sample for whom those obstacles were insurmountable. Prisons are inherently dangerous places, the 8th Circuit concluded in his case, and "inmates bent on assaulting other inmates will use even the most harmless objects as weapons."

Judge James Loken, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that, for Vandevender, "the outcome was tragic, and an assault with this weapon was, in hindsight, no doubt avoidable."

Still, he concluded by quoting the Farmer decision, writing, "an official's failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of Eighth Amendment punishment."

A fiancée's warning

Six years after Latimer's assault on Vandevender, Rush City experienced another violent attack. This time, officials were repeatedly warned of the risk.

Trina Murray was at home in bed one night when she got the call. She was confused; her daughter never phoned that late. She listened with a rising panic as she learned that her only son, David Hodges, had been assaulted at Rush City.

Hodges is a large man, tall and broad-shouldered, with the word "family" inked onto his right forearm. But Murray still worried about his exposure to violence when, in 2011, he was sent to prison for sexual assault. She knew what Minnesota's prisons could be like, having worked in two of them.

She tells one story from when she was an officer at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Lino Lakes, a medium-security prison outside Minneapolis, in the 1990s. There, in her telling, she witnessed a group of officers placing bets on how many prisoners they could send to solitary confinement. When she reported the behavior, she became the target of a campaign of retaliation. The officers, all men, followed her to her car. They called her the N-word, she said, and told her to go back to Africa. Later someone threw a rock through the window of her home. Eventually, she quit.

After the call that evening in September 2018, she scrambled to learn what had happened to her son. In incident and investigative reports, Hodges claimed that another prisoner, Courtney Osgood, had entered his cell with a shank, angry that Hodges had refused to pay off a debt owed by Hodges' cellmate. Osgood grabbed Hodges' locs, ripping some out, and attempted to stab him. Hodges, who had been making coffee on a small hotplate, threw the boiling water at Osgood, who raced out of the cell.

Prison officials weren't aware of the altercation, according to an incident report, until Hodges' then-fiancée called the prison, concerned about his safety. Once alerted, Hodges' subsequent civil complaint said, they sentenced Osgood to 20 days in segregation — and gave twice that to Hodges. Gene Olson, a prison lieutenant who investigated the incident, said in a deposition that he couldn't prove Hodges' account of the attempted stabbing because officials couldn't track down the shank. Osgood also denied Hodges' account in a message to BI, calling it a "fabricated narrative."

In segregation for about six weeks, locked in a tiny cell, the lights on 18 hours a day, Hodges said, he obsessed about one thing: what was waiting for him when he got out.

"It's prison politics 101, if I assault you and I hurt you real bad, you're looking to get your lick back," he said. "Needless to say, I'm a big guy, and I know this time he was coming with help."

Hodges begged officers to move him to a different unit, verbally and in writing. Murray, his mother, along with his fiancée, his sister, and his grandmother, called and wrote over a period of six weeks to the prison and to state corrections headquarters, imploring officials to take action because they feared for his life. "What exactly must he do to get a transfer to another facility for his safety?" his fiancée asked in a late-October email to the warden at the time, Jeffrey Titus. "Why must something really bad happen before he is taken seriously."

Every prison in Minnesota has an incompatibility-review committee composed of prison staff that meets to decide whether particular prisoners pose a risk to each other and need to be separated. Their deliberations, a former corrections staffer at Rush City told BI, are usually documented in great detail. Rush City's panel, which included Olson, had met in late September 2018 and decided that Hodges and Osgood didn't need to be separated. Ashlee Berts, a corrections program director who oversaw the committee, said in a deposition two years later that no notes were kept to explain their rationale. She said she didn't remember who was on the committee, whether it had convened in person or over email, and what was discussed. Olson said under oath that, despite the pleas from Hodges and his family, he didn't believe Hodges faced any threats.

Schnell, the corrections commissioner, said he expected his staffers to fully document incompatibility reviews. "It's news to me that there wasn't that information," he said of Berts' claim that no records were kept. "We want to be in a position where we can say that we have documentation that we did that and the basis for it."

In early November, just hours after Hodges was released from segregation, Osgood and a fellow prisoner assaulted him in the living unit, throwing a mixture of hot water and capsaicin, a chili-pepper extract, in his face. Surveillance video shows Hodges trying to escape as the two men come toward him. They land a series of punches as Hodges waves his arms in a futile attempt to make contact with his assailants. His eyes were blinded and burning, he told BI, saying it felt like an eternity before officers arrived. Medical records show he suffered a nasal fracture, second-degree burns, and an eye injury.

Ten days after the assault, the committee made a new determination: Hodges and Osgood were incompatible, and Hodges' transfer request was granted.

Almost five years later, Hodges discussed the incident while sitting in an empty visitors' room at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Moose Lake, a state hospital turned prison an hour north of Rush City. The window blinds concealed a barbed-wire fence just outside. He wears wire-framed glasses now, to help with the blurred vision he's lived with since the attack. "I had a lot of sleepless nights," he said. "Every time I think about the situation, I'll have flashbacks." In a July 2019 incident report, an officer described finding him crying in the midst of an anxiety attack.

Like Vandevender before him, Hodges filed a lawsuit alleging that prison officials at Rush City failed to keep him safe.

With Vandevender, the court's ruling hinged on the fact that he'd experienced a surprise attack. But the attack on Hodges came after a campaign of urgent warnings that he feared for his life.

The defendants argued that launching the incompatibility review was itself proof they hadn't been deliberately indifferent to Hodges' welfare. A federal judge, Wilhelmina Wright, accepted the officers' claim that they had determined in good faith that Osgood no longer posed a threat.

"The fact that this conclusion proved to be incorrect does not demonstrate that Defendants recklessly or intentionally ignored an obvious risk," Wright wrote in deciding in the officers' favor. The 8th Circuit — the same appeals court that decided Vandevender's case — agreed with Wright on appeal, finding that the officials had simply "predicted incorrectly." Hodges' claim failed.

A modern-day 'Lord of the Flies'

The sample BI analyzed is full of cases in which officers failed to act on warnings that prisoners were at risk.

Marc Bakambia, another Rush City prisoner, said that after a group of prisoners beat him up and threw him over a railing, he was placed in their same unit and assaulted again, leaving him with bone fractures and a traumatic brain injury. Craig Shipp claimed he had sought orthotic shoes for his diabetes and degenerative joint disorder but Arkansas prison and medical staff denied his repeated requests; he said he eventually developed an infection severe enough to result in the amputation of his right foot. Mitchell Marbury claimed he requested a transfer after a friend warned him that a fellow prisoner was out to get him; he said an Alabama corrections officer laughed and told him to get a shank. Less than a week later, he said, he was stabbed in the facility's day room.

The Arkansas and Alabama corrections departments did not respond to requests for comment; the Minnesota corrections department did not comment on the Bakambia case.

"Marbury's argument is essentially that every prisoner who tells prison officials about an unspecified threat from an unspecified inmate without more is entitled to protective custody or a transfer," 11th Circuit judges wrote in the majority opinion. "Our caselaw establishes a higher standard for deliberate indifference."

"The Eighth Amendment does not allow prisons to be modern-day settings for Lord of the Flies," Judge Robin Rosenbaum wrote in a scathing dissent. By not holding officials responsible, she said, "the Majority Opinion condones this behavior and ensures it will occur again."

In reviewing Hodges' appeal, Kelly, the 8th Circuit judge, wrote her own opinion, as she had in the Vandevender case. She disagreed with how her colleagues assessed the question of mindset, writing that a committee finding alone should not release prison officials from liability. She also noted that "the absence of documentation regarding prison decisions or prison officials' inability to remember events central to their decision-making process may be relevant," raising the question of whether those gaps could have been deliberate.

Many corrections officers are made aware of the mindset standard. BI requested officer training materials from every state prison system and obtained them from 37 — most of which explicitly trained on deliberate indifference. Taken together, the documents indicate that the standard, as interpreted by federal courts, could encourage prison staff to remain incurious about what goes on in their facilities.

As Oregon's training materials say, "basically, deliberate indifference is a cognitive choice to do what you did."

Fathi, of the ACLU, reviewed a sample of the training materials BI obtained and said the guidance might lead officers "to act in ways that violate people's rights and that harm people very severely."

Many of the materials, he said, appear to train officers to treat prisoner complaints with suspicion. In a 2021 Mississippi slide deck, for instance, corrections officials were told prisoners try to compromise their integrity "as entertainment and for their amusement" or "to facilitate an escape, assault, rape or murder." A slide in a 2018 Utah training PowerPoint displayed the header "inmates do crazy things… then sue YOU for it."

"It's good to train them on the law," Fathi said. "But they should also make clear that we expect more than the absolute minimum that's required to avoid violating the Constitution."

Memory issues

On a muggy June morning in 2023, as the sun was just beginning to peak out in Euless, Texas, James Vandevender was already up in his father's modest one-story house in the Dallas suburb, pouring himself a cup of coffee. He had moved there from Minnesota, after his last prison stint, looking for a fresh start.

He was dressed in khakis for his job installing high-end appliances. A tattoo of his son's name showed below his shirt sleeve, and a scar cut across his cropped brown hair.

He moved through the same routine as every morning: packing his lunchbox, scarfing down breakfast, and swallowing an array of anti-seizure pills and antidepressants.

Still, that day, he forgot to put the ice pack in his lunchbox and had to redo it. When he headed outside to toss out the trash, he couldn't remember where he stowed the garbage bins. By the time he and his coworkers gassed up and headed off to the first house, Vandevender had misplaced his phone.

As they wrapped up their first job and headed back to their truck, Vandevender realized he'd left his tool bag inside.

At the next house, the men were tasked with installing a mounted range hood they'd never encountered before. It was a tricky job, Vandevender said. By late afternoon, visibly frustrated, he called the installation a "fucking joke."

His coworker Mike, in a black baseball cap to protect from the sweltering sun, took a breather in the driveway, away from the tension inside. "He's been having memory issues all day long. It's an everyday thing," he said of Vandevender. "That's when he gets frustrated."

Ashley Christen, the mother of Vandevender's 20-year-old son, said that when the two of them were growing up in rural Minnesota, Vandevender was smart and quick-witted, known for delivering the best one-liners. As a kid, he loved to hunt and spend time on his grandfather's dairy farm; his mother, Peggy, said he was fun and lovable, always offering to help out around the house.

But since the assault, they both said, he's struggled to communicate. He's forgetful, irritable, and prone to snap. Peggy said he relied on scribbled notes to get through the day.

"It shouldn't have happened," she said. "It was because of their lack of watching the people," she added. "It was due to their negligence."

On a recent fall afternoon, 12 years after Latimer bludgeoned him with the wooden post, Vandevender sat down with a friend to watch surveillance footage of the attack for the first time. He doesn't remember anything from that day; his first recollection is waking up weeks later, confused and shackled, in a hospital bed flanked by corrections officers.

"I just want to make sure you're mentally prepared to see it," the friend told him, before pressing play. "I want to," Vandevender said.

When the video finished, there was a long silence.

Eventually, he started talking. He said the footage took him back to his time in prison — the smell, the barbed wire, the disrespect. He said that he noticed Latimer picked up the post from an unauthorized part of the industry area, where prisoners weren't allowed, and that any unused lumber should have been disposed of. He said he felt the weight of what it must have been like for his mother, when she got the call every parent of an incarcerated child dreads.

When asked about the life he could have had, the one where he got out of prison at age 25 without the burdens of a traumatic brain injury, he struggled to respond.

"I don't want to talk about it," he said.

EXCLUSIVE: A conservative legal watchdog is expected to file a brief with a Kentucky court to urge a judge against blessing a consent decree forged by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the city of Louisville and Jefferson County, Ky., that would reform police practices after the controversial 2020 death of Breonna Taylor.

The Oversight Project is placing its amicus brief on the docket of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on Friday morning as a judge prepares a schedule to rule on activating the agreement.

Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell said the consent decree includes a "laundry list of BLM-type standards that have been argued for over the years since George Floyd['s death in 2020]" and the riots that followed.

"Louisville would be a sanctuary city for gangbangers," Howell warned, adding he hopes Friday’s addition to the docket gives the court pause before agreeing to any accelerated timeline for approval.

PROPOSED CHICAGO POLICE RESOURCE CUTS COULD LAND CITY IN COURT UNDER CONSENT DECREE, OFFICIALS WARN

Taylor was killed in a hail of police gunfire after Louisville officers sought to serve a drug warrant at her boyfriend Kenneth Walker’s house, when her beau fired a "warning shot" through the door and struck Officer Jonathan Mattingly in the leg.

A hail of return fire followed, fatally wounding Taylor, and five officers were later involved in legal cases where one was found guilty of deprivation of rights under the color of law for reportedly firing blindly through a window amid the chaos.

Walker later alleged he mistook the police for intruders and did not hear them announce themselves. Louisville wound up paying Taylor’s family $12 million in a wrongful death settlement.

Last week, Garland announced the consent decree with Louisville, saying it will bring about needed systemic reforms to policing to prevent a repeat of what happened to Taylor.

Howell said, however, that the decree will only hamstring the police department and also defy the will of Kentucky voters who elected new Republicans on the Louisville council on the issue of law and order.

"[The decree] basically limits the ability for officers to react quickly and in a strong way. It's very heavy on the de-escalation techniques, particularly as it relates to this category of people who they call ‘behaviorally impaired’ or something to that effect," Howell said.

BIDEN ADMIN HIT WITH FOIA SEEKING 25TH AMENDMENT-RELATED COMMS

Howell said there is concern over the spiking teenage murder rate – violence committed by suspects aged 11-17 – and that the decree wrongly imposes new standards for dealing with youth offenders as well as stop-and-frisk restrictions.

One of the most glaring issues with the agreement is the fact Louisville councilmen, Kentucky lawmakers and the general public will all be prevented from making further adjustments to policing policies for five years, if the judge signs the decree.

In a consent decree system, an official monitor appointed by the judge, and not the relevant legislature, is the arbiter of policies that fall under said agreement unless both parties that forged it agree to change them.

Howell said, in that regard, the Biden Justice Department and Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat, appear to be rushing through the legal process to head off the likelihood a Trump Justice Department will balk at the agreement.

"The most basic responsibility of government is to keep our people safe while protecting constitutional rights and treating everyone fairly," Greenberg said in a statement about the decree. "As mayor, I promised to uphold that responsibility, and I have."

"The Department of Justice saw the action we’ve already taken and our commitment to aggressively implement police reform. As a result of these improvements, we have a consent decree unlike any other city in America."

Greenberg said any decree must build on reforms made in recent years, cannot "handcuff police as they work to prevent crime" and also be financially responsible and have a clear sunset date.

"I felt comfortable signing this because our officers will have clear guidance and goals to meet, the DOJ can’t move the goalposts, and our officers can focus on good police work, not paperwork," added Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey.

The Oversight Project’s amicus brief is backed by law enforcement advocacy leaders like Jason Johnson, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Johnson, whose group promotes constitutional policing and studies similar consent decrees, told Fox News Digital it's clear the Biden DOJ realizes such an agreement would be "D.O.A." when President-elect Donald Trump assumes the Oval Office. 

"Most of these police consent decrees are more of an activist wish list than effective means to remedy constitutional violations by police agencies. The Justice Department is trying to impose burdensome rules that far exceed their authority under law," Johnson said.

He suggested that technical assistance letters, which aim to encourage reforms without imposing a judicial arbiter, are generally preferred in most cases.

"But, the activist lawyers in the Biden administration prefer to use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. This approach has proven counterproductive time and again — hurting public safety, police morale, and police-community relations more than it helps."

Meanwhile, Howell said he hopes the Kentucky judge will see that Greenberg and Garland are trying to "turn him into a legislature" when it comes to law enforcement practices.

Under the consent decree system, the policy changes will be untouchable by a more hawkish Trump DOJ for up to five years, rendering the new administration’s predicted actions in the law enforcement realm moot in Louisville.

Criminals will likely endorse the decree, he said, as they will use the encyclopedia of new policing standards to their benefit.

Nearly three years into Bill Clinton's first term as president, US senators took to the floor to tackle an urgent concern. Prisoners across the country were filing too many lawsuits.

"The vast majority of these suits are completely without merit," Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, said in September 1995. "It is time to lock the revolving prison door and to put the keys safely out of reach of overzealous federal courts."

Sen. Harry Reid, who would go on to become the Senate Democratic majority leader, ticked off a litany of ridiculous cases he said were clogging up the nation's courts. There was the Missouri prisoner who sued because his facility didn't have salad bars on the weekends. And the Nevada prisoner who said his constitutional rights had been violated when he received chunky peanut butter — not smooth — from the prison canteen.

"And to think, we, the taxpayers, are paying for all of this," Reid said.

Reid and Hatch were speaking in support of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, introduced by the most powerful man in the Senate at the time, the Republican Bob Dole. Dole, then the majority leader, had pitched it as a common-sense reform that would sharply curb such "frivolous lawsuits." Hatch insisted it wouldn't affect prisoners who raised legitimate claims.

The National Association of Attorneys General helped craft the legislation and circulated top-10 lists of "frivolous" prisoner lawsuits, including the complaints about salad bars and peanut butter, to garner support. A few attorneys general — from red and blue states alike — took their case to The New York Times. "We feel strongly that convicted criminals should not be granted unlimited free access to our courts to conduct their costly and most often frivolous lawsuits," they wrote.

"It was about resources," a former attorney general who backed the legislation said. "You are just struggling to run what was then the state's largest law office. So to me it was a question of degrees. Let's find some balance and look at cases that need to be looked at and get rid of steak and wine and peanut butter cases."

Some elected officials issued warnings. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts called the bill "patently unconstitutional," and Joe Biden, then a Delaware senator, said it placed "too many roadblocks to meritorious prison lawsuits." But it passed easily, buried in an omnibus appropriations bill, with little legislative debate about its potential repercussions.

In April 1996, Clinton signed the PLRA into law.

A separate system of justice

While it had never been easy to file a lawsuit from prison, the rules of play had been roughly the same as for any other indigent person seeking redress in court. The PLRA changed that, effectively carving out a separate and unequal system for prisoners.

Prisoners could now win monetary damages only if the harm they endured was physical, rather than mental or emotional. Strict caps on attorney fees discouraged lawyers from representing prisoners, leaving the vast majority of plaintiffs, many without a high-school diploma, to file on their own.

Many prisoners would no longer get their day in court: A judge or staff attorney would screen cases before any evidence could be presented or any motions could be made. If the screener deemed a case frivolous or decided it had failed to clearly state a constitutional claim, the judge could simply dismiss the case. A prisoner who had three suits dismissed in this way — the "three strikes" rule — would be barred from filing another without paying prohibitive court fees.

Crucially, any claims that made it to court would be dismissed if a prisoner could not show they had exhausted their prison's internal grievance process — procedures that a number of state corrections departments have turned into arcane, highly technical affairs.

"In a busy court, there's a template to get rid of the cases," Nancy Gertner, a former federal district judge in Massachusetts, said of the PLRA, "and invariably they're gotten rid of."

The senators were right that there had been an uptick in prisoner lawsuits. But that increase closely tracked the rise of the prison population as the war on drugs and punitive sentencing laws more than doubled incarceration rates from 1986 to 1996, the year the PLRA became law.

Reid had compared prisoners to "an alcoholic locked inside a liquor store," abusing the nation's legal system with easy access to the courts. But legal scholars have found that the rate of prisoner legal filings had actually stayed relatively consistent.

In fact, Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan, found that in the year before the PLRA was signed into law, prisoners filed a similar number of lawsuits per capita as people on the outside.

Within five years of its passage, prisoner suits dropped by 43%, even as the prison population continued to grow, according to Schlanger's research. Schlanger examined prisoner filings again in 2022 and found that the filing rate never rebounded.

Cases that prisoners have filed since the law's passage, she found, have struggled to succeed. To understand why, Business Insider analyzed a sample of nearly 1,500 federal cases alleging "cruel and unusual punishments" in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including every appeals court case we could locate with an opinion filed from 2018 to 2022 citing the relevant Supreme Court cases and standards.

Some were filed by former prisoners after their release, or by their families, who were not bound by the PLRA. But in an examination of the roughly 1,400 cases filed by people while they were imprisoned, the impact of the PLRA jumped out — 27% of those cases failed because of the law's requirements.

In BI's district court sample, the PLRA's effects were more dramatic — 35% failed because of the law.

A few dozen of the claims BI examined appeared to center on minor matters: For instance, an Indiana prisoner claimed he developed a rash after he wasn't allowed to shave, an Alabama prisoner said he was served undercooked food, and a Michigan prisoner sued saying he'd been denied shoes while being held in a dirty shower. But the vast majority clearly involved claims of substantive harm. Among them were dozens of claims that prisons had allowed retaliatory beatings, stabbings, sexual assaults, and egregious forms of medical neglect.

These include the case of Kenneth Coleman, a Florida prisoner. He said prison officials put him in the same cell as an "enemy" who later assaulted him, leaving his left eye with a sag. He lost his case for failing to complete the prison's grievance process before filing suit. They include a case out of Colorado, in which the plaintiff said she began self-mutilating after medical providers failed to dispense the hormone blockers that had been prescribed to treat her diagnosed gender dysphoria; her case was dismissed because the court ruled that self-harm didn't count as a physical injury. And they include the case of Benjamin Gottke in Louisiana, whose left leg was amputated below the knee after, he said, corrections officials failed to protect him from being assaulted. His case was dismissed at screening for failure to properly state his legal claim.

The Louisiana and Colorado corrections departments declined to comment on the record. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Corrections did not comment on the Coleman case but said, "We ensure the safety and healthcare of our inmate population in accordance with Florida law."

When prisoners' cases are knocked out by the PLRA, they rarely succeed on appeal. Such appeals, BI found, failed nine out of 10 times.

Victor Glasberg, a civil-rights attorney in Virginia, has represented prisoners for decades and successfully litigated an Eighth Amendment case about conditions on the commonwealth's death row. "The Prison Litigation Reform Act is the worst piece of federal legislation to have been enacted in my lifetime, and I was born in 1945," he said. "It is malicious, vindictive, and grossly unfair."

An undiagnosed tumor

Kevin Harrison Jr. was 24 years old and not long into a life sentence for murder when he first noticed lumps on the left side of his chest. In July 2011, he saw Michael Hakala, a doctor at Southeast Correctional Center in Missouri who worked for a prison healthcare company called Corizon Health, now YesCare, which was then contracted to provide healthcare to the state's prisoners. In a civil complaint he would later file, Harrison said Hakala assured him that the lump was benign without ordering a biopsy.

Two years later, the lumps had grown considerably, Harrison's complaint said. During shirtless basketball games, he said, other prisoners told him he looked as if he'd been shot.

Harrison said Hakala again assured him that nothing was wrong.

More than seven years after his first appointment, in November 2018, Harrison said he was granted a visit with another doctor; that doctor also worked for Corizon. Concerned by what had become a gnarled mass, the doctor ordered a biopsy. At 31 years old, Harrison was told he had a rare form of skin cancer.

He underwent what he described as a grueling, invasive surgery that required doctors to cut deep into his pectoral muscle to remove the tumor. He wore a bandage for months as his chest slowly healed, and he lived with debilitating pain. Several years later, the muscle pain and spasms have barely abated, he said, and with his follow-up appointments often delayed he worries the cancer will return.

In March 2022 he filed suit against Hakala and other medical staff alleging that they had violated his constitutional rights by failing for years to biopsy his tumor.

His case was dismissed during screening.

Patricia Cohen, a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, found that his handwritten complaint, filed without counsel, had failed to make a clear Eighth Amendment claim: He hadn't shown he could prove the defendants had intentionally delayed his treatment.

As in many claims dismissed at screening, the judge gave Harrison 30 days to file an amended complaint. In this case, a court clerk, Nathan Graves, said Cohen had provided Harrison with "clear instructions" for how to do so. Harrison, whose request for an attorney was denied by the judge, told BI he missed the deadline because he was locked in solitary confinement for assaulting two corrections officers. He refiled the case last year, which is still pending; the defendants have yet to respond to the underlying claims.

Tad Eckenrode, Hakala's attorney, declined to comment on the pending litigation but noted that Harrison's claims remained unproven allegations; the Missouri Department of Corrections declined to comment. A YesCare spokesperson declined to speak about Harrison's case but said by email, "Our industry is filled with mission driven professionals who are committed to serving incarcerated individuals, many of whom have never received healthcare in their life, within a challenging prison environment," adding that "ignoring the many successes and positive advancements in our industry only serve to make it more difficult to retain and recruit medical professionals to serve incarcerated populations."

Of the 376 cases in BI's sample disqualified by the PLRA, 75% were dismissed at screening, denying the plaintiffs the chance to argue their case in court — or seek discovery. Over half of those cases involved allegations of inadequate medical care, including several for potentially fatal illnesses, such as Harrison's cancer.

"As a result of the PLRA, people who have suffered horrific harm, people who have extremely meritorious and compelling cases, get thrown out of court for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of their case," said David Fathi, the director of the National Prison Project at the ACLU. "It just tilts the playing field against prisoners across the board."

Several cases in BI's sample dismissed at screening involved claims that negligence had left prisoners with permanent disabilities. A Kansas plaintiff said one of his feet was amputated after an infection was allowed to fester; a prisoner in California said he was left with persistent migraines and dizziness after a guard, while trying to quell a fight between two other prisoners, shot him in the head. Eight prisoners who alleged that they'd been sexually assaulted had their cases dismissed at screening.

The Kansas Department of Corrections declined to comment; a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not address the shooting claim but said the department had "fundamentally reformed its approach to addressing allegations of staff misconduct to enhance staff accountability and improve transparency."

A ticking clock

Prisons are hierarchical systems, largely insulated from the outside world, where corrections officers control every aspect of a prisoner's life. The PLRA effectively requires prisoners experiencing abuse or neglect to confront those officers directly, mandating that they pursue grievances internally before they have the right to seek redress in court. Prisoners in multiple cases said that requirement came with consequences.

In the spring of 2016, a Texas prisoner named Juanita Ornelas began a prolonged battle with the prison bureaucracy. Ornelas, a transgender woman who said she presents as masculine in prison for safety reasons, said she was being repeatedly sexually and physically abused by another prisoner at the William R. Boyd Unit in East Texas.

Ornelas, who was serving time on weapons charges, was required by Texas corrections policy to try to resolve the issue informally and then to submit a formal grievance, on a specified form, all within 15 days of the incident. The unit's grievance coordinator would then have at least 40 days to respond, at which point, if Ornelas wasn't satisfied, she would have another 15 days to file an appeal.

In a complaint that she would later file in the Western District of Texas, Ornelas said she had been terrified her attacker would kill her if she filed a grievance. She said that she had witnessed attacks on other people who had filed grievances and that it was common knowledge that officers at Boyd often ratted out prisoners who disclosed sexual abuse. When Ornelas finally asked an officer for a grievance form, she said in a memorandum she introduced in court, the officer refused and instead told her to stop snitching.

Desperate for help, she said, she instead submitted several I-60s — a form Texas prisoners use for routine transfer requests — to Alexander Hamilton, an investigator in the criminal justice department's office of the inspector general who had once visited the unit. Ornelas thought if she reported the assaults directly to Hamilton, she would have a better chance at getting moved out of danger.

But her I-60s to Hamilton went unanswered and the abuse continued, she said.

Amanda Hernandez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said that Ornelas' claims were investigated and could not be substantiated and that "the agency takes all allegations of abuse seriously," promptly forwarding them to the appropriate authorities. The office of the Texas attorney general, which represented Hamilton, did not respond to queries.

In early June 2016, officials moved Ornelas to a different prison. It had nothing to do with the rape allegations, she told BI; she'd been accused of housing a weapon in her cell, though she said it wasn't hers. There, 200 miles away, she submitted a series of grievances to document the abuse she said she experienced at Boyd. Even then, Ornelas said in her memorandum, officials repeatedly refused to process the forms or said they hadn't received them. In January 2017, she said — nine months after she had sent her first I-60 to Hamilton and four months after she went on a hunger strike — a grievance form was finally processed.

"I couldn't believe it was so hard to report something like that," Ornelas said. "They just completely ignored and disregarded the sexual-abuse report."

A year later, Ornelas filed a pro se lawsuit alleging that Hamilton had violated her Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect her from repeated sexual assaults. Though Ornelas said the rapes were so violent they left her bloodied, the attorney general never weighed in on the underlying claims in court, focusing on Ornelas' failure to meet the deadline for submitting a prison grievance before filing suit; a district judge, Alan Albright, agreed with that assessment and dismissed her case. On appeal, the 5th Circuit ruled that even if Ornelas had followed prison protocols, she'd still lose the case: She had offered no proof that Hamilton ever saw or received the letters.

The offices of Albright and the other federal judges who presided over cases decided in this story declined to comment, didn't respond to interview requests, or, in the case of Cohen, the judge in Missouri, said the decisions spoke for themselves.

'Byzantine grievance processes'

The requirement to exhaust a prison's internal grievance system before filing suit is one of the PLRA's most significant obstacles. Of the prisoner cases knocked out by the law in BI's sample, nearly one in four failed because judges decided the plaintiff had not fully complied with the grievance process.

"The exhaustion-of-remedies requirement definitely incentivizes prison systems to create Byzantine grievance processes," Corene Kendrick, the deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project, told BI. "If you fail to meet a single deadline, or if you worded something in a way that wasn't quite specific enough, the courts will often just throw the cases out."

Legal scholars have described prison grievance procedures as something out of Kafka.

In Colorado, for instance, a grievance can be denied if the handwriting is deemed illegible or if the prisoner uses more than "one line of dialogue" to describe the abuse allegation. In Florida, a grievance can be rejected if more than one issue is discussed in a single form. In West Virginia, only one staple may be used to attach the pages.

Many states require prisoners to use an official grievance form, which prisoners sometimes depend on corrections officers to supply. Once filed, the form may go into oblivion.

"A lot of times, especially in segregation, you give the grievance to an officer," one West Virginia prisoner told BI. "Nine times out of 10 it's going in the garbage."

Andy Malinoski, a representative of the West Virginia Department of Commerce, responding on behalf of the state corrections division, said the agency "adamantly denies" the prisoner's claim and "is committed to the safety, quality of life, and well-being of those in the care of the legal system in our state."

Tiffany Yang, an assistant law professor at the University of Maryland, authored a study last year finding that the PLRA had effectively provided a playbook to prison systems on how to narrow the pathway to judicial relief. She documented instances in which state corrections departments had responded to a successful prisoner lawsuit by amending their grievance requirements to make the rules more complex. She called this cycle the "prison pleading trap."

"Each prison system can define its own internal grievance procedure, and that decision has created a system that is designed to fail the very people that it should protect," Yang told BI. "Even if an incarcerated person is successful in overcoming administrative exhaustion, what prison officials can do with that defeat is to transform it into a blueprint for how to amend the grievance policy to make it more difficult for future litigants."

In her study, Yang discussed a 2005 case in Arkansas in which the courts allowed a prisoner to move his case forward against medical staffers he said had denied him dental treatment, ruling that they were identifiable even though his grievance listed only their job titles, not their names. The state corrections department then updated its procedures to require all Arkansas prisoners to specify, in their first grievance, the full names of each individual involved. As Yang wrote, that alone can prove to be an impossible hurdle in situations in which officials don't wear name badges, hide their badges, or refuse to provide their names to prisoners.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections did not respond to queries.

In a 2022 legal brief, the ACLU joined with other civil-rights groups in arguing that because prison administrators design the procedures that prisoners must follow before suing them, there is "a perverse incentive to make grievance processes as impenetrable as possible."

The statute of limitations for civil suits is typically measured in years. But most prisoners must file a grievance on a much tighter timeline. In Louisiana, prisoners are encouraged to seek an informal solution and then have three months to file a grievance. In Arizona, they have 10 days to make an informal complaint and then five days after that to file the formal grievance. In Michigan, they have two days to resolve the issue informally and then five days after that to submit a grievance form. If they don't file on time, they can't win in court later.

Even when an incident has left a prisoner consigned to the hospital or solitary confinement, the clock can continue to tick.

A former Minnesota prison lieutenant told BI that, at the facilities where she worked, "a fairly high percentage" of prisoners had no idea how to navigate the grievance process. She said that prisoners were alerted to its existence, but only through a "two-second conversation" during intake. Prisoners at facilities in several states told BI they were never instructed by staff on how to properly complete these forms, and instead relied on rare visits to the library or on fellow prisoners — untrained jailhouse lawyers — for guidance.

Paul Schnell, Minnesota's corrections commissioner, said the department continually tries to improve its grievance system. He expressed surprise at the lieutenant's claim, "given the number of grievances we get."

"If the door is closed for people, that's not OK," he said. "We want to make sure people have a mechanism" for exercising their due-process rights.

In any case, filing a grievance comes with risks. The risk of retaliation from other prisoners and staff, as Ornelas feared in Texas. Or the risk of formal punishment. In some states, such as Alaska, officials can hand down disciplinary action if they believe a prisoner has abused the grievance system.

Again and again, a law meant to end frivolous prisoner lawsuits has halted Eighth Amendment claims on technicalities regardless of the underlying merits of their case. Many were thrown out over missed grievance deadlines; others because a prisoner failed to provide the full name of a staffer or use the proper terminology in stating their claim.

Unintended consequences

From the moment it was enacted, the PLRA faced intense criticism. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 1996, an advocate for incarcerated teenagers warned that the law "contains several provisions that hinder efforts to protect children from danger and abuse" in juvenile institutions; the American Bar Association admonished Congress for passing a law that it said contained "unconstitutional" provisions.

David Keene, as chair of the American Conservative Union, called for the law to be reformed, saying in a 2008 op-ed article that "it had the unintended consequence of virtually insulating prison officials from external oversight." In 2014, the United Nations' Committee Against Torture expressed concern that the law was "curbing prisoner lawsuits at the expense of inmates' rights."

One of the most sustained efforts at reform coalesced in 2007, more than a decade after the PLRA was signed into law. The bipartisan SAVE Coalition rallied behind a bill introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia that sought to ease some of the law's most onerous requirements. "It needed reform because there's so many instances where legitimate claims couldn't be heard," Scott told BI. "On the meritorious cases, prisoners just don't have rights."

Those who testified on behalf of the bill included a retired federal judge who said the PLRA "unnecessarily constrains the judge's role, limiting oversight and accountability"; a former director of the California prison system, who said the legislation created "often-insurmountable obstacles" for prisoners; and a former Republican attorney general who, after himself spending time in prison for mail fraud, called the PLRA a "deeply flawed" law that "undermines the protection of constitutional rights that all Americans, including prisoners, share."

Sarah Hart, as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, had assisted Congress in drafting the PLRA and testified against the proposed reforms, arguing that "the current system allows corrections managers to learn of serious problems in the prison, take prompt action to stop them, and remedy past problems."

Keene, who went on to serve as president of the National Rifle Association, told BI that one of the reasons he took up criminal-justice reform was that his son had spent time in a federal prison. During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 in support of Scott's bill, Keene said it was impossible for his son to properly file grievances, accusing prison officials of intentionally giving him the wrong forms and of reading his confidential legal mail. "The process is broken," he said, quoting a letter his son wrote from prison. "It feels like I'm playing poker in a rigged game."

In their March 1995 letter in The New York Times, the state attorneys general insisted that the PLRA wouldn't block meritorious cases, that "no reasonable individual would accept that cases of sexual assault by prison guards or unchecked and rampant tuberculosis within the prison population should be dismissed or disregarded as nonmeritorious."

On the contrary, in the decades since the law was enacted, many prisoners accusing guards of assault have had their cases blocked by the PLRA. In BI's sample, PLRA technicalities likewise knocked out cases involving allegations of sexual harassment by a corrections officer, delayed treatment for hepatitis C, and prolonged stints in solitary confinement.

Just months after the PLRA became law, Jon O. Newman, a federal judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, authored an article in the Brooklyn Law Review. In it, he examined the three lawsuits attorneys general cited as frivolous in their New York Times op-ed, at least two of which made their way onto the Senate floor. He found that the Nevada prisoner hadn't filed suit because he preferred chunky peanut butter over creamy. He sued because he said that the commissary had charged him $2.50 for the jar — nearly a week's wages for a prisoner — and that he never received the item. "I readily acknowledge that $2.50 is not a large sum of money," Newman wrote. "But such a sum is not trivial to the prisoner whose limited prison funds are improperly debited."

The Missouri prisoner who was ridiculed for wanting a salad bar, meanwhile, had filed suit with dozens of other prisoners alleging major deficiencies at their facility, including insufficient food, meals contaminated by rodents, a lack of proper ventilation, and dangerous overcrowding that the plaintiffs said had resulted in the housing of healthy people together with those with contagious diseases.

"The prisoners' reference to salads was part of an allegation that their basic nutritional needs were not being met," Newman wrote. "The complaint concerned dangerously unhealthy prison conditions, not the lack of a salad bar."

Decades later, it was as if Newman's article had never appeared. In a 2015 brief before the Supreme Court, Michigan's attorney general at the time, Bill Schuette, pulled out the peanut-butter anecdote again to argue that a prisoner's case should be dismissed under the PLRA.

His brief used the word "frivolous" 48 times.

• Luigi Mangione is in New York to face both state and federal murder charges.
• His new federal indictment alleges he stalked and then killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
• Manhattan prosecutors say state charges will "proceed in parallel with any federal case."

Luigi Mangione appeared in federal court Thursday on new federal murder charges that could result in the death penalty or life in prison.

It was Mangione's first appearance in a Manhattan courtroom, this one crowded with press and federal staff, on charges in the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He is expected to be arraigned on state murder charges in a courthouse one block away on Friday.

Mangione's voice was calm but firm as he answered the judge's questions.

"Mr. Mangione, do you understand what you have been accused of?" US Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker asked at one point before he entered his plea.

"Yes," he answered.

Edward Y. Kim, the acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, has yet to say if he will seek the death penalty or a life sentence for the most serious charge in the four-count indictment — murder through the use of a firearm.

One former federal prosecutor called the death penalty a "remote" possibility, given Mangione's youth, and the chance that he may have suffered a mental breakdown in the six months before the shooting.

"In New York's federal courts, it's uncommon for them to seek the death penalty, and I think probably more uncommon for juries to want to authorize it, even assuming that Mr. Mangione killed Mr. Thompson in the way the government is alleging," said Michael Bachner, now in private practice.

The other three federal counts against Mangione allege he possessed and used an illegal firearm, and that he traveled interstate — between Georgia and New York, in order to stalk and kill Thompson.

Mangione presented an orderly, if tense, appearance in the chilly 26th-floor courtroom.

He was clean-shaven and his bushy eyebrows neatly groomed. Mangione sat with his shoulders raised and held stiff and wore khaki pants and a navy quarter-zip sweater over a white collared button-down shirt.

His ankles were shackled together with thick chains beneath the table where he sat. He wore bright orange slip-on sneakers without shoelaces.

To either side of Mangione sat his lawyers, husband-wife legal team Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo. Both are veteran criminal attorneys and former prosecutors. Their firm, Agnifilo Intrater, LLC, also represents Sean "Diddy" Combs in his federal sex-trafficking case, scheduled to be tried in the same Manhattan courthouse in May.

After Parker read the charges aloud to him, Mangione's posture relaxed. He repeatedly raised his left hand to pat down the hair at the back and side of his head.

He crossed his arms and wore a skeptical expression on his face with his tongue poking out between his lips while Friedman Agnifilo demanded clarity on how different law enforcement agencies coordinated and would present evidence in the case.

Mangione's next court date was set for January 18. His lawyers did not apply for bail, though Friedman Agnifilo said in court that she may do so on a future date.

Earlier Thursday, in a Pennsylvania courtroom, Mangione abandoned his extradition fight and was whisked to New York in an NYPD aviation plane and, upon landing at a Long Island airport, via police chopper to a lower Manhattan heliport.

His arrival in federal court was greeted by dozens of reporters and a smattering of fans holding messages of support written on cardboard.

"Health over Wealth," read one.

Mangione has yet to be arraigned on his first murder case, announced Tuesday by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

He faces up to life in prison on that state indictment, which alleges he murdered Thompson as an act of terror — a first-degree felony, the highest state charge and penalty available.

In a press statement after Mangione's federal appearance, Kim said he expects the state case — announced by Bragg just two days prior — would proceed to trial first.

In court Thursday, Friedman Agnifilo called the dual prosecutions "highly unusual" and said the charges between the Manhattan district attorney's office and the federal US attorney's office seemed to contradict each other.

The district attorney's indictment alleges Mangione killed Thompson in furtherance of "terrorism" that affects a "population of people," she said. But the federal charges accuse Mangione of stalking Thompson as an individual, she said.

Police and prosecutors say Mangione killed Thompson outside a midtown Manhattan hotel on December 4.

Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after a five-day manhunt, on local gun and false ID charges. A Manhattan grand jury later indicted on charges related to the killing itself, and the New York cases will take priority over the lesser charges in Pennsylvania.

While in jail in Pennsylvania, Mangione received 54 email messages and 87 pieces of mail, Maria Bivens, of the state Department of Corrections, told BI.

There were also 163 deposits made into Mangione's commissary account, Bivens said. Bivens declined to say how much money was deposited in total.

These accounts can be used to buy toiletries or additional food items in the jail's store.

In the 1980s and 1990s, a series of Supreme Court decisions and a new law sought to curb "frivolous" prisoner lawsuits and give more deference to prison officials. Together, they changed the legal landscape of the Eighth Amendment — the foundational constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishments."

Heavy criticism soon followed — from the American Bar Association, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices themselves. Ted Kennedy, then the senior senator from Massachusetts, described one critical measure, the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, as "a far-reaching effort to strip federal courts of the authority to remedy unconstitutional prison conditions."

In successive decades, judges and legal scholars have continued to argue that these developments erode protections for the 1.2 million people incarcerated nationwide. Top law-enforcement officials, on the other hand, have argued that prisoners were clogging up the courts with costly, meaningless actions. And federal judges have hesitated to substitute their own judgment for that of correctional personnel on the ground.

Little has been known about how the Supreme Court standards and the 1996 law shaped outcomes for cases alleging Eighth Amendment violations — and how many of the underlying claims dealt with frivolous matters.

Business Insider set out to investigate. Guided by advice from legal scholars including Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and attorneys who have argued Eighth Amendment cases, BI built and analyzed an original database of 1,488 federal Eighth Amendment lawsuits.

BI found that constitutional protections had been dramatically weakened. Cases settled a third as often as civil-rights suits filed by nonprisoners. And plaintiffs won their cases less than 1% of the time.

Here's how we arrived at our findings.

We started with cases in appellate courts

BI sampled lawsuits using Westlaw, a legal-research platform, searching for opinions that cite one of the two Supreme Court standards that now guide how federal courts evaluate Eighth Amendment claims. While Westlaw is one of the most complete databases of legal filings, it is, like the others, not completely comprehensive.

Claims that allege excessive force are governed by a standard called "malicious and sadistic," so to sample those claims BI searched Westlaw for opinions that mentioned the standard and cited one of the Supreme Court's precedent-setting decisions, Whitley v. Albers or Hudson v. McMillian.

Cases alleging constitutionally inadequate healthcare, a failure to protect, or inadequate conditions of confinement are governed by the "deliberate indifference" standard; to sample those claims, BI searched Westlaw for opinions that mentioned the standard and cited Farmer v. Brennan, Wilson v. Seiter, or the earlier Estelle v. Gamble, the relevant Supreme Court precedent-setting cases.

Because so few Eighth Amendment cases make it to the appeals stage, we were able to pull all opinions that fit these parameters over the course of five years — from 2018 to 2022 — spanning two presidential administrations and the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected prisons and courts nationwide.

Then we sampled cases at the district courts

A great many cases filed in district court never reach the appeals courts. In consultation with constitutional scholars, we pulled a sample of district-level cases to understand how Eighth Amendment cases founder earlier in the process. For these, we pulled all cases with judicial decisions filed in the third quarter of 2022 that fit the same search parameters.

Our district sample captured many more cases that failed under mechanisms imposed by the PLRA.

Together, our samples spanned cases from every circuit in the United States filed by prisoners held in hundreds of US prisons in 47 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. They are likely not comprehensive. If a case file did not mention the Supreme Court standards or the precedent-setting cases — as when a prisoner without counsel lacked knowledge of the law and the case was dismissed on technical grounds at prescreening — our search would not have captured that case. The impact of the PLRA may be greater than our dataset indicates.

About one in 10 cases contained additional claims unrelated to the Eighth Amendment, including claims filed under the First Amendment or the Americans with Disabilities Act. We tracked only the outcomes of their Eighth Amendment claims.

The sample is dominated by suits filed by people while they were incarcerated but also includes cases filed by formerly incarcerated people or their surviving families. BI excluded cases unrelated to incarceration and those pertaining to pretrial detainees. We excluded any case from our district sample that also appeared in the circuit sample. We also excluded cases that had not reached a final disposition, including subsequent appeals, by September 1, 2024.

Our data analysis

A team of researchers read federal court filings associated with each case and logged details in 59 variables including plaintiff names and incarceration status; the claim category and standard applied; defendant names, roles, and employers; alleged harm suffered, such as broken bone, amputation, or death; whether defendants asserted an affirmative defense, such as qualified immunity; whether the plaintiff had counsel; and judge and court names. If a plaintiff had a lawyer at any point during their case, we logged them as having legal representation.

Researchers assigned each case a final disposition category based on the standard or procedural mechanism under which the case was ultimately decided. BI counted all cases that failed under any mechanism of the PRLA — whether they were dismissed at screening, or were struck because prisoners failed to exhaust the prison's grievance process before filing suit, or fell short of any other of the law's requirements — as having failed under the PLRA. This tally included cases in which a judge granted a plaintiff leave to amend. If the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, we logged the case according to its final resolution.

When defendants voluntarily withdrew their cases for reasons clearly unrelated to reaching a settlement; died without a family member or estate to continue their case; or otherwise failed to respond to a court order resulting in dismissal, BI counted these cases as abandoned or withdrawn.

BI's sample included 86 cases with claims governed under both the "malicious and sadistic" and "deliberate indifference" standards. For those, we analyzed the case on both standards, recorded each claim's disposition, and assigned a final disposition category to the case based on the longest surviving claim. For example, if a judge dismissed a plaintiff's excessive-force claim but allowed the plaintiff's claim of inadequate medical care to go to a jury trial, we counted the case outcome under the "deliberate indifference" standard.

In 12 cases, judges granted summary judgment to claims governed by both standards in a single order. Ten of these cases alleged excessive force and alleged inadequate medical care for the injuries they said resulted; two claimed both excessive force and inadequate conditions of confinement. We assigned all these cases as having lost on the "malicious and sadistic" standard since the claims centered on an excessive-force complaint.

The sample includes 28 cases in which a jury found in favor of the defendants. BI counted these as cases in which the plaintiffs lost on the relevant standard.

BI counted cases as having failed on qualified immunity, the Supreme Court doctrine that can shield public officials from civil liability, only when that standard was decisive in the dismissal of a plaintiff's claim. Another Supreme Court precedent, known as Bivens, governs cases filed against federal officials; we tallied a case as a Bivens failure only when a judge dismissed a claim solely because it had not met Bivens standards.

All cases were recorded as having reached a settlement when the settlement was clearly stipulated in the docket or when the defendant and the plaintiff submitted a joint motion for dismissal pursuant to an out-of-court settlement agreement. To identify damages paid, BI reviewed the docket for disclosed settlement amounts and supplemented this research with news reports and public announcements.

BI counted two categories of cases as plaintiff wins: cases in which the plaintiff won at jury trial and cases in which judges made decisions in favor of the plaintiff — whether for damages or for injunctive relief.

To supplement and contextualize our analysis of the 1,488 lawsuits, containing tens of thousands of pages of court records, we reviewed hundreds of pages of training materials obtained through public-records requests from 37 states, as well as medical records, incident reports, and surveillance footage obtained through records requests and court filings. We reviewed scholarly literature on the Eighth Amendment; read Supreme Court decisions, dissents, and archives; and reviewed archived congressional debates. And we interviewed more than 170 people, including prisoners and their families, attorneys and legal scholars, correctional staff and prison healthcare providers, policymakers and law-enforcement officials, and current and former federal judges.

The prisoners write in carefully lettered script or on old electric typewriters. There are sometimes grammatical errors or misspellings. But the language is direct. They describe facing Stage 4 cancer after their symptoms went undiagnosed for years. The denial of orthotic shoes to treat a diabetic condition that led to a severe wound and amputation. Nineteen years locked in solitary confinement.

Some describe beatings and sexual assaults by fellow prisoners that they say corrections officers failed to prevent. Others say they were assaulted by officers themselves.

The Eighth Amendment, which bars "cruel and unusual punishments," was intended by the founders as a bulwark against prisoner abuse. Over the years it came to mean any treatment that "shocked the conscience." But prisoners and civil-rights attorneys have said that it is now nearly impossible to win such claims in court.

To investigate whether that constitutional protection holds, a Business Insider team read tens of thousands of pages of court records for nearly 1,500 Eighth Amendment complaints, including every appeals court case with an opinion we could locate filed from 2018 to 2022 citing the relevant precedent-setting Supreme Court cases and standards. We reviewed hundreds of pages of training materials, medical records, incident reports, and surveillance footage. We read cases from prisoners convicted of violent and nonviolent crimes — some who have spent decades behind bars for murder or sexual assault, others sentenced to short stints for marijuana possession or third-degree assault. We spoke with more than 170 people, including prisoners and their families, attorneys and legal scholars, correctional staff and prison healthcare providers, and current and former federal judges.

We uncovered a near evisceration of protections for this nation's 1.2 million prisoners, largely propelled by legal standards and laws put into place at the height of the war on drugs.

In our analysis, plaintiffs prevailed in only 11 cases, including two class actions — less than 1%.

"If a right is unenforceable, then it's not much of a right," Paul Grimm, a former federal judge for the District of Maryland, said after reviewing BI's findings. "It is essentially unavailable."

One Tennessee prisoner wrote a letter to the court after failing to overcome these steep odds in his own case.

"To everyone I tried to talk to and ask to file grievances and complaints to bring the wrongs to light," he wrote, "I'm sorry that I tried to bring hope and law and order to a place that has no hope or process of order."

Failed oversight

Over decades, federal and state oversight agencies have repeatedly found that US prison systems have failed to protect prisoners in their care. Just this year, an inspector general found that staff in federal prisons had failed to adequately respond to medical emergencies, contributing to 166 prisoner deaths. The Department of Justice recently found that people held in Georgia state prisons had experienced "horrific and inhuman conditions" stemming from what the DOJ called "complete indifference" by the institutions. "Inmates are maimed and tortured," the department wrote, "relegated to an existence of fear, filth and not so benign neglect."

Some years ago, an oversight monitor found that California prisons' system for disciplining officers accused of excessive force was "broken to the core."

For prisoners inside these systems, the courts are often the only backstop left.

But in the 1980s and 1990s, as the nation's prison population exploded, a new law and a series of revised legal standards radically restricted the ability of prisoners to prevail in Eighth Amendment lawsuits.

The 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, passed with robust bipartisan support, effectively carved out a separate and unequal system for prisoners who seek to file suit.

It required prisoners to complete a prison's internal grievance process before filing a claim in court — and then survive a screening process. After that, their claims faced exacting Supreme Court standards. Claims that guards had used excessive force were now decided under a 1986 standard that granted broad protections to prison staff as long as their actions were not "malicious and sadistic." Claims that prison staff have failed to keep prisoners safe — whether from violence, negligent healthcare, or inhumane conditions of confinement — were now decided under a Supreme Court standard, refined in 1994, which says such failures violate the Constitution only if officials were "deliberately indifferent."

Together, the standards shifted the focus away from the underlying claims of abuse, however extreme, and onto the question of prison officials' intent.

David Fathi, the director of the National Prison Project at the ACLU, said the emphasis on mindset has become "an enormous barrier to justice for incarcerated people." If abuse or neglect exists in prisons, he said, "that should be enough to violate the Eighth Amendment."

"You shouldn't have to go looking for someone who was thinking bad thoughts."

Altogether, said Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot, a former appellate attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center, these laws and standards have made federal courts "inhospitable places for incarcerated people." Though some attorneys turn to state courts instead, there they face another set of challenges, such as caps on damages for malpractice claims or, in some cases, weak state constitutional protections.

The Department of Justice, the ACLU, and other powerful litigators have sometimes succeeded in winning Eighth Amendment cases that usher in reforms through consent decrees or injunctive orders. But such outcomes are rare. The DOJ has secured consent decrees in just four prison cases over the past decade.

A separate and unequal system

In restricting access to the courts, lawmakers in the 1990s argued that most prisoners filed suits over "frivolous" matters. Yet only a few dozen of the claims in BI's sample were over minor complaints, such as being denied shoes to wear in a dirty shower.

Among cases that prisoners lost, we logged 161 claims that guards had failed to protect a prisoner from being beaten or stabbed, including four fatalities. We identified 42 failed cases alleging untreated cancer, heart disease, HIV, or hepatitis C. We logged 78 claims of untreated mental illness, including eight that ended in suicide. There were 21 claims of sexual assault by prison staff. There were claims of confinement in extreme filth, including exposure to poisonous spiders, black mold, and feces.

The vast majority of prisoners, BI found, are navigating all of this without attorneys, in part because of the PLRA, which prevents attorneys from recovering their full litigation costs.

In the outside world, most civil suits settle — about 73%, one study found. In BI's sample, only 14% of prisoner lawsuits did, sometimes for paltry amounts or no damages at all. One North Carolina prisoner who said guards beat him while he was in restraints settled for $250.

By the time the cases were settled or decided in favor of the plaintiffs, those in charge — the wardens and medical directors — had almost always been dropped as defendants, limiting the ability of those judgments to drive institutional change.

Billions of taxpayer dollars go to corrections contractors, to run everything from food services to healthcare to staffing to data management, and the legal obstacles introduced in the 1980s and '90s have shielded these for-profit companies as well. For example, hundreds of private prison health providers or their employees were named as defendants in BI's sample. Of these cases, 14% settled and plaintiffs prevailed in less than 1%. One law-review article concluded that the low risk of liability had influenced companies' cost-benefit analysis and "leads to dangerous, ineffective healthcare that is shielded from constitutional challenge."

More than one federal judge described prisoner claims as tragic — before going on to cite precedent or the narrow standards in deciding against the plaintiffs. Several issued fiery dissents. One was issued in an August 2019 case filed by a prisoner who was denied a transfer he said was necessary for his safety. "We do not sentence people to be stabbed and beaten," Judge Robin Rosenbaum of the 11th Circuit wrote.

"The Eighth Amendment does not allow prisons to be modern-day settings for Lord of the Flies," she went on. "The Majority Opinion condones this behavior and ensures it will occur again."

This project was supported by a grant from Columbia University's Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in conjunction with Arnold Ventures. Data analysis and visualization were supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Just days after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared in a "queer" Broadway spinoff of "Romeo and Juliet," critics are questioning whether her involvement could compromise her impartiality as the court considers a landmark case about banning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

"I think it's a huge mistake for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to engage in activities that clearly put the stamp of approval on an ideological position regarding issues that could come before the court, which is practically the definition of a threat to their impartiality, the appearance of impropriety," Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

"It's unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances. But I suppose if this was ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different. But this is obviously an advocacy production, so for a Supreme Court justice to participate in advocacy on an issue that is currently in the courts, and at least broadly speaking, before her, I think it's a huge mistake," he said.

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

The musical, called "& Juliet," features prominent LGBTQ+ themes and nonbinary characters. The musical begins where Shakespeare's original ends. Instead of dying by suicide for love, Juliet chooses to forge her own path, challenging traditional gender roles. On its website, "& Juliet" is described as a "hilarious new musical" that "flips the script on the greatest love story ever told."

Juliet's best friend, May, is a nonbinary character whose queer relationship is prominently featured and explored throughout the musical.

Jackson joined the Broadway cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

"& Juliet" was written by David West Read, best known for his work as a writer and producer on the TV show "Schitt’s Creek." The musical premiered in November 2019, at the Shaftesbury Theatre in London's West End. Its Broadway debut followed in November 2022, at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in New York City.

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Liberals have criticized several conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years over ethical concerns, fueling calls for stricter oversight. 

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced scrutiny over his wife’s political activism. Justice Samuel Alito has been criticized for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by wealthy donors with business before the court, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has drawn attention for her ties to religious groups and their potential influence on cases involving LGBTQ+ issues and abortion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also faced criticism over his confirmation process and past financial disclosures.

"For two, three years now, liberals have been complaining about actions by Supreme Court justices that they say undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," Jipping said. "Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this."

"Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality. I don't think there's any question about that," he said.

Jackson wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance posted by the production's social media account, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

'THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING': EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

"She should stay on her side of the bench, and judges should protect their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality more, not less. And this, this was really reckless, in my view," Jipping added.

This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court justice has stepped into the spotlight of the performing arts. In 1994, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared as supernumeraries – non-speaking, background roles – in a Washington National Opera production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." 

The two, known for their ideological differences but close personal friendship, shared a love of opera.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this month, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. The court will resume arguments in January and a decision is expected by July 2025.

The Supreme Court's press office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request by press deadline.

Fox News Digital's Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

A federal appeals court ruled against Texas doctors who had tried to sue President Biden's administration over its transgender policies this week.

The three judges making up the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead unanimously found that the doctors did not have standing to sue. The court's Monday decision asserted that the doctors had not violated the policy, nor did they face any threat of enforcement.

The Biden policy bans discrimination against transgender people in health care. Monday's ruling overturns a previous favorable decision for the doctors handed down by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

Biden's Health and Human Services Department announced a rule change in 2021, choosing to interpret a section of the Affordable Care Act that banned discrimination on the basis of sex to also apply to transgender people. The three Texas doctors argued that interpretation goes beyond the text of the law.

SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS' SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING

The doctors further argued that the policy could force them to administer treatments they do not support. They cited examples like prostate cancer in a transgender woman, which would require treatment based on the individual's biological sex.

The ruling comes just weeks after the Supreme Court heard arguments in its own case on transgender policy, one relating to whether the Constitution allows for state bans on transgender surgeries for minors.

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING'

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared reluctant in oral arguments to overturn the Tennessee law in question in the case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures. The Constitution leaves such questions "to the people's representatives," Roberts noted during arguments, rather than to nine justices on the Supreme Court, "none of whom is a doctor."

Justice Samuel Alito, however, cited "overwhelming evidence" from certain medical studies listing the negative consequences for adolescents that underwent gender transition treatments. Should the justices rule along party lines to uphold the lower court's decision, it will have sweeping implications for more than 20 U.S. states that have moved to implement similar laws.

Petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor.

At issue during Wednesday's oral arguments was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a "quasi-suspect class," thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 

Fox News' Breanne Deppisch and Reuters contributed to this report.

A Washington, D.C. committee tasked with investigating bribery allegations against City Councilmember Trayon White Sr. voted on Monday to recommend the lawmaker be expelled for allegedly accepting over $150,000 in bribes.

The committee voted unanimously to recommend White be expelled, after reviewing a report that found "substantial evidence" that the councilman violated the D.C. Code of Conduct while in office.

Following the vote, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson released a statement about the committee's decision.

"Let’s cut through the legal jargon. Trayon White is accused of taking bribes," Mendelson said. "The prosecutors have established probable cause, our own independent investigation found substantial evidence that he took bribes, and public servants are prohibited from taking bribes. This is quintessential corruption.

DC COUNCILMEMBER FACING FEDERAL BRIBERY CHARGES WINS LANDSLIDE RE-ELECTION, BUT COLLEAGUES MAY OUST HIM

"There is only one remedy: to remove the corruption from our body," the councilman later added. "This incident has damaged the public trust necessary for government to function well. Anything less than expulsion will not rectify the situation."

Over the summer, White was arrested on a federal bribery charge after being accused of accepting over $150,000 from an associate in exchange for extending violence interruption contracts.

In response to the allegations, the ad hoc committee of the council commissioned an independent investigation, which was conducted by the law firm Latham and Watkins LLP.

DC COUNCILMAN STUFFED POCKETS WITH ENVELOPES OF CASH IN ALLEGED BRIBERY SCHEME, FEDS ALLEGE 

The report was provided to the council last week, and it included an in-depth analysis along with 29 supporting exhibits, FOX 5 in DC reported.

After reviewing documents, interviews, emails and texts, investigators found "substantial evidence that Councilmember White violated Council Rules and several provisions of the Code of Official Conduct."

The investigators specifically said White accepted cash from business owners in exchange for agreeing to meet with and influence government officials who approve their contracts, the station reported.

FBI ARRESTS DC COUNCILMAN WHO IN 2018 ACCUSED JEWISH FINANCIERS OF ‘CLIMATE MANIPULATION’ 

The report also claimed White had a ledger detailing the profits he intended to earn, including a kickback of 3% of the grants he helped renew.

Mendelson and White did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter.

The station reported that White spoke before the meeting on Monday, saying, "I do want to say that there has been no clear evidence of nobody in all these interviews saying that I tried to grab them. And so, I’m confident to that."

The council needed a five-sixths vote to adopt a resolution of expulsion, which is the most severe punishment available. A proceeding on the expulsion is to be held within 45 days, during which time White will be able to defend himself.

White’s federal bribery charge trial is on the calendar to begin in January 2026. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

Fox News Digital's Greg Norman contributed to this report.

In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump's 2024 win, some federal judges have opted to make a rare move and unretire by changing their previously stated plans to move to senior status, which would have created vacancies that Trump would have the opportunity to fill on the federal bench. The move is being met with outrage by some Republicans in the Senate. 

U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to seek senior status this month as he had originally planned, instead retaining his role on the court. His choice came after Senate Democrats agreed to allow Trump to appoint his choices to several circuit court vacancies, including the seat being left by Wynn. 

The move angered Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., whose state is under the circuit's jurisdiction. "Judge Wynn's brazenly partisan decision to rescind his retirement is an unprecedented move that demonstrates some judges are nothing more than politicians in robes. Judge Wynn clearly takes issue with the fact that Donald Trump was just elected President, and this decision is a slap in the face to the U.S. Senate, which came to a bipartisan agreement to hold off on confirming his replacement until the next Congress is sworn-in in January," he said in a statement.

RFK JR SET TO FACE ABORTION, VACCINE SCRUTINY IN SIT-DOWNS WITH SENATORS ON CAPITOL HILL

"The Senate Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on his blatant attempt to turn the judicial retirement system into a partisan game, and he deserves the ethics complaints and recusal demands from the Department of Justice heading his way."

A spokesperson for incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "Senator Grassley looks forward to working with President Trump to fill judicial vacancies with constitutionalist judges, and will work with committee Republicans to respond to inappropriate partisanship on the bench," when asked about potential hearings.

The same was done by lower level appointees U.S. District Judges Max Cogburn and Algenon Marbley, who changed their plans last month. 

BIDEN CLEMENCY ANNOUNCEMENT GETS MIXED REVIEWS ON CAPITOL HILL: 'WHERE'S THE BAR?'

While the district judges were not included in the agreement to leave certain vacancies to Trump, it had become increasingly unlikely that President Biden and Democrats would be able to fill the roles in time. 

In early December floor remarks on the rare decisions by the judges, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, "They rolled the dice that a Democrat could replace them and now that he won’t, they’re changing their plans to keep a Republican from doing it."

GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL OFFER SUPPORT FOR TRUMP FBI PICK KASH PATEL, URGE SENATORS TO DO THE SAME

"It’s a brazen admission. And the incoming administration would be wise to explore all available recusal options with these judges, because it’s clear now that they have a political finger on the scale," he added. 

McConnell noted that the agreement made prior to Thanksgiving between Republicans and Democrats stated that the GOP would "forego our available procedural roadblocks on the remaining nominations to district courts—which have the votes to be confirmed—and in exchange the Democratic Leader won’t bring any of the remaining nominations to circuit courts to the floor—because they don’t have the votes to be confirmed." 

Trump's transition office did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

President Biden and key Democrats are now opposing a once bipartisan bill that would have authorized 63 new permanent district judgeships now that President-elect Donald Trump would be the one to fill 21 of those slots once he takes office.

The Senate in August passed the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act" or the "JUDGES Act of 2024," which staggers the 63 new permanent judgeships the president may choose over the next 10 years. Citing how courts are burdened by heavy caseloads, the bill says the president shall appoint 11 of those permanent judgeships in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. The president would tap another 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033 and 10 more in 2035, the bill says. 

Democrats are decrying how the bill did not come to a vote in the House before the election – when control of the next presidency, and therefore which party would choose those next 21 judges, still hung in the balance. 

The White House released a statement on Tuesday saying Biden would now veto the bill if it came to his desk. 

"While judicial staffing is important to the rule of law, S. 4199 is unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice," the White House said. "The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now." 

TRUMP WILL APPOINT 'DOZENS' OF JUDGES, EXPERTS SAY, DESPITE DEMS RAMMING THROUGH NOMINEES IN LAME-DUCK SESSION

"In addition, neither the House nor the Senate fully explored how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships," the White House continued. "Further, the Senate passed this bill in August, but the House refused to take it up until after the election. Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated." 

During a House Rules Committee hearing on Monday, Rep. Chip Roy, R-N.C., and House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, made the argument that a significant number of districts in states, regardless of their political make-up, have sounded the alarm about staffing shortages worsening the backlogs of cases. However, despite the significant need, they argued, the appointment process has become politicized.

"We need the number of judges," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, admitted. "However, President Trump has shown, he bragged that by his three appointments, he overturned Roe v. Wade. He said he was going to do it. He did it. So don’t tell me it’s not political." 

"Under this legislation, we all promised to give the next three unknown presidents a certain number of judges," Nadler said. "Because no one can tell the future we were all at an equal disadvantage, but for this deal to work, the bill had to be passed before Election Day."

The bill text cites how as of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases in the district courts across the country, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month period.

Shortly before the White House released its statement signaling Biden would veto the bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave a speech noting how the JUDGES Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August.

TRUMP NAMES ALINA HABBA AS COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT; REVEALS SEVERAL STATE DEPARTMENT PICKS

The bipartisan support, McConnell argued, proved "that the right to a speedy trial still enjoys overwhelming popularity." 

"I was particularly encouraged by the vocal endorsement of our friend, the Democratic leader, who recognized the measure as, quote, ‘very responsible, bipartisan and prudent bill that would lead to a better functioning judiciary.’ Soon, we expect the House to take up and pass the JUDGES Act with similar overwhelming support," McConnell said. "And normally, we could rest assured that such popular action would be signed into law without further ado. But maybe not this time." 

"Last week, the White House seemed to suggest, through anonymous comment that President Biden has concerns with the bill. I, for one, would be curious to hear the president's rationale. It's hard to imagine a justification for blocking the JUDGES Act that doesn't smack of naked partisanship," McConnell, who did lead the GOP effort to block former President Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, said. "It's almost inconceivable that a lame duck president would consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Litigants across America deserve their day in court," he said. "They deserve to know the federal judiciary has the bandwidth to carefully and thoroughly consider their cases. The president, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is well equipped to appreciate this fact, and I hope he acts accordingly." 

Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge in America at age 97, is continuing to fight against a suspension from the bench by her colleagues who found her mentally not fit enough to serve. Newman is appealing her suspension and has also filed a motion to unseal documents related to an investigation which ultimately led to her being temporarily removed from the bench.

Newman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was barred from serving in September 2023 for a year by the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council after the panel said she refused to cooperate with an investigation into "reasonable concerns" surrounding her mental fitness. The suspension was extended for another year by the panel in September. 

The Committee on Judicial Conduct conducted more than 20 interviews with court staff pointing to her "significant mental deterioration including memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility and severe agitation," per court documents. 

FEDERAL JUDGE, 96, BARRED FROM HEARING CASES AFTER PANEL CLAIMS LACK OF MENTAL FITNESS: 'BASELESS ALLEGATIONS'

The suspension order also said Newman was slower than her colleagues in issuing opinions and had "amassed a troubling backlog of cases," which her team has said is not accurate.

The Federal Circuit Court on which Newman has served for nearly 40 years deals frequently with patent, intellectual property and copyright cases. Newman is considered a leading intellectual property jurist.

The investigation into Newman led her to file a federal lawsuit against her fellow judges.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, a President Obama appointee, threw out most of Newman’s lawsuit in February, then dismissed the entire case on the pleadings in July, per Law & Crime.

In his 15-page ruling, Cooper rejected the legal challenges Newman had raised to the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and did not focus on the factual allegations against Newman.

Newman appealed the ruling Monday and argued via counsel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that although advanced in age, she "retains her sharp intellect," and both lay and expert witnesses have described her as an "unusually cognitively intact … woman" whose cognitive and physical abilities make her appear "20 or more years younger than her stated age," per Law & Crime.

She says she is physically and mentally fit enough to continue doing her job, and has obtained independent evaluations from doctors issuing the same opinion, court documents revealed.

REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE, NOW 95, FACES PROBE INTO WHETHER SHE CAN STILL DO THE JOB

In the appellate brief, cited by Law & Crime, Newman’s counsel said she was in sound mental and physical health, and argued that the only reason Newman was late in submitting written opinions is that "she takes extraordinary pains to ensure that her opinions fully reflect her views and remain consistent from case to case and year to year."

Newman is being represented in the lawsuit by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonprofit civil rights group that says it views the "administrative state" as an especially serious threat to constitutional freedoms.

The group says that the suspension is illegal and that Newman was removed without due process. 

"Judge Newman’s indefinite, complete suspension is unprecedented in American judicial history, exceeding sanctions imposed on judges who committed serious misconduct and improprieties," the group said in a statement. "Suspending an Article III judge from all judicial functions of her office is unconstitutional."

The group said that world-renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Aaron G. Filler recently directed a cutting-edge Perfusion Computed Tomography (PCT) scan of Newman’s brain and administered a full neurological examination that turned up "no relevant deficits, confirming that she is fully fit to perform the duties of the office."

On Thursday, Greg Dolin, who has represented Newman throughout the case, said via a statement that the entire disciplinary process against Judge Newman was "always factually baseless and legally meritless."

"But the issues are more important than Judge Newman," said Dolin, a senior litigation counsel for the NCLA. "At stake is the very independence of American judiciary and our system of checks and balances. The D.C. Circuit should put a stop to the Federal Circuit Judicial Council’s unconstitutional and ultra vires actions against Judge Newman."

Newman also filed a motion to unseal documents related to the committee’s investigation and findings that are subject to a Dec. 4 gag order, per Law & Crime.

Newman’s legal team said that Newman’s judicial colleagues have refused to abide by rules of judicial conduct and have "threatened Judge Newman and her counsel with unspecified sanctions" for making documents public.

Her team also accused the defendants of seeking to "direct the process within their own forum" in an "entirely inappropriate effort" to contradict the law.

Former senior U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown, was the oldest person to serve as a federal judge in the history of the United States, actively hearing cases until approximately one month before his death at age 104, according to the U.S. Courts. 

Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy and Elizabeth Pritchet contributed to this report. 

While Washington is enveloped in battles over President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees, a different but equally raucous appointments battle boiled over this week just 300 miles down US-1 from the nation's capital.

North Carolina Republicans, seeing their veto-proof supermajority slip away by a single legislative seat in the state House, are trying to override outgoing Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s disapproval of a bill that would move gubernatorial authority over the NC Board of Elections to the State Auditor’s office.

The Senate overrode the veto but not without an uproar that led to the gallery being cleared. The House is poised to attempt its complementary override, but the GOP’s plans have hit a snag there.

The proposal was part of a bill chiefly geared toward Hurricane Helene relief, and was lambasted by Democrats as a power grab, in part due to the fact the GOP flipped the executive branch office with Auditor-elect Dave Boliek – but failed to see their gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson best Gov.-elect Josh Stein.

NC OVERRIDES VETO OF ICE-TRUMP AGENCY COOPERATION

However, Robinson – as the Senate’s presiding officer – moved to clear the gallery after raucous protestations and chants of "Shame, Shame, Shame!" erupted above lawmakers preparing to vote on the veto override. Robinson has thus far had to do so twice, according to Carolina Public Press.

As the eventually successful vote was about take place, a woman shouted "[the law] destroys the will of the voter – it’s voter suppression!"

"It restructures the entire state constitution."

Robinson, without raising his voice, spoke into his mic that the woman was "disrupting … the legislative process."

When a gallery-watcher shouted that the bill lacked any "reasonable relief for hurricane victims," Robinson banged his gavel and called out, "Clear the gallery."

"Everybody’s gotta go," he said, as police calmly ushered spectators out, threatening those who remained with arrest.

"You can bang that gavel," one man was heard taunting Robinson as he left.

NC JUDGE SENDS PROSPECTIVE JUROR TO JAIL OVER COVID MASK VIOLATION

State Sen. Natasha Marcus, D-Huntersville, was heard on video captured by the Raleigh News-Observer calling out to Robinson that he could not clear the whole gallery, because many people were respectfully watching the vote, and saying the capitol is "the people’s house."

Before he vetoed the bill, Cooper told NBC Charlotte that the legislation "really didn't provide immediate and direct funding to western North Carolina" despite being labeled as Helene relief. He called it a "massive power grab."

Jim Stirling, a research associate at the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, has done a deep dive into the controversy, and his group filed an amicus brief with lawmakers in a recent lawsuit related to the matter.

"It is not under the purview of the governor to execute all laws. The other executive agencies of the executive branch or indeed other executive elected officials are in charge of executing law. Not just the governor," Stirling said.

"Under [Cooper’s] argument, he says effectively that all appointments must be under him because he's in charge of executing the law, and he has the power of appointment on this."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Overriding the veto, however, could render part of the lawsuit moot, he said.

The lawsuit will "probably need to be restarted based on the argument that these appointments must be under the governor, not any other executive agency (like the auditor)," he said.

Neither Cooper nor Robinson responded to a request for comment. 

In moving election boards’ appointment power to the state auditor’s office, the state board’s activities would remain independent of Boliek and the executive branch, but his office would control its appointments and funding, according to NBC Charlotte.

What would change would be the current Democratic control of the elections board, an official told the outlet. The state auditor would also be able to appoint chairpersons in all 100 Tarheel State counties.

Currently, Cooper – and would-be Stein – also appoint the state board’s members, who must consist of three majority-party and two minority-party individuals.

Attempts to move appointment powers away from the governor’s office have been subject to lawsuits in recent months and years. The most recent ruling, in Cooper v. Berger, held that an attempt to move appointment powers to the legislature unlawfully infringed on the executive branch’s express power in that regard.

A prior case, McCrory v. Berger – bearing the name of Cooper’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory – resulted in a state supreme court ruling holding that some appointments made by legislators violate separation of powers.

In the state House, three Republicans from the Helene-ravaged western part of the state voted against the bill, with one, Rep. Mark Pless of Canton, saying it had nothing "that was going to send money to the many needs in Western NC – it was simply moving money from one account to another."

Pless, however, said the election board appointments portion appears "allowable by the legislature," according to FOX-8. The veto-override in the lower chamber, therefore, could come up just short if the trio do not change their original positions.

Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker spoke out after a county judge in Madison struck down major parts of a 2011 law geared toward public employee unions. 

Dane County Judge Jacob Frost ruled that the provisions of a law known as Act 10, which selectively exempt certain public workers from its restrictions on unionization and collective bargaining, are unconstitutional. The controversial law sought to close a budget deficit by limiting collective bargaining, thereby moderating public workers' benefits that Walker said at the time helped solve a fiscal situation he was required to address.

The original passage in 2011 led to weekslong protests inside the state Capitol, and even saw legislative Democrats flee to neighboring Illinois to prevent Republicans from reaching a quorum to vote on it. Walker later survived a 2012 recall election over the law's passage and rode his success into a decent showing in the 2016 presidential race, where he eventually bowed out of the primary that ultimately went to Donald Trump. 

On Tuesday, Walker, who currently leads the conservative-training nonprofit Young America's Foundation (YAF), said his law simply took power "out of the hands of the big union bosses and put it firmly into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers…"

"And what this court decision did as brazen political action was to throw that out and put power back in the hands of those union bosses," he said in an interview, calling collective bargaining not a right but an "expensive entitlement."

POMPEO CLAIMS TEACHERS' UNION BOSS IS AMONG THE ‘MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE' IN US

Asked about Frost’s assertion that disparate treatment of collective bargaining rights of certain "public safety" workers and other public workers was unconstitutional, Walker said it was a "bogus political argument." 

Frost stripped more than 60 sections of the law from the books.

The law was upheld multiple times at the state and federal levels, Walker replied, adding a new issue is that of a potentially-growing "liberal activist majority" on the officially nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court that may hear any appeal of the ruling.

Walker said that if appealed, the first place the case will land is in Waukesha court, which he predicted would overturn Frost. But a subsequent appeal by the left would bring it before the state’s high bench.

"It’s all the more reason why the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin this spring (2025) is more important than ever," he said.

Walker went on to discuss the roots of Act 10, and how it was his way of abiding by Wisconsin’s balanced-budget requirement. He noted the original name was the "Budget Repair Act" and that a prior Democratic administration instead chose to cut funding for municipalities, which instead resulted in layoffs.

Instead of risking job loss or Medicare cuts, Walker opted to require public workers to contribute more to their entitlements in return for keeping their pensions solvent.

WALKER SAYS WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED

In addition, Wisconsin Senate President Chris Kapenga echoed Walker’s claim that partisan politics played a role in the ruling:

"[I]t’s proof there is very little justice left in our justice system. Wisconsin's legislature should be discussing impeachment, as we are the only check on their power," said Kapenga, R-Oconomowoc.

"Believing Dane County judges and the liberal majority in our state Supreme Court are independent jurists is almost as far-fetched as believing the border is secure, inflation's not a problem, or [President Biden] won't pardon his son."

"The left keeps telling us, ‘Don't believe what you see’ — Wisconsinites see right through it," he said.

As for Walker’s current role as president of YAF, he said his organization is preparing for conservative leadership to return to Washington as he brought it to Madison in 2010.

Walker said he is thrilled by the prospect of seeing many YAF alumni in the new Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and formerly ex-Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sergio Gor, a longtime aide to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was named Trump’s head of presidential personnel last month. Walker praised Gor's prior work leading YAF’s George Washington University chapter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Four years ago, younger voters sided with Biden by 25 points," Walker said. "This election, that shrunk right down to 5 or 6 points. And most interestingly, young men four years ago went with Biden by 15 points. In this election, they shifted to Trump by 14. What we need to do is lock that in."

A Russian court has issued a life sentence to a man found guilty of being the kingpin of a dark web drug marketplace that supplied more than a metric ton of narcotics and psychotropic substances to customers around the world.

On Monday, the court found that Stanislav Moiseyev oversaw Hydra, a Russian-language market that operated an anonymous website that matched sellers of drugs and other illicit wares with buyers. Hydra was dismantled in 2022 after authorities in Germany seized servers and other infrastructure used by the sprawling billion-dollar enterprise and a stash of bitcoin worth millions of dollars. At the time, Hydra was the largest crime forum, having facilitated $5 billion in transactions for 17 million customers. The market had been in operation since 2015.

One-stop cybercrime shop

“The court established that from 2015 to October 2018, the criminal community operated in various regions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus,” the state prosecutor’s office of the Moscow Region said. “The well-covered activities of the organized criminal group were aimed at systematically committing serious and especially serious crimes related to the illegal trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances.”

Read full article

Comments

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a high-profile case involving the right of transgender minors to receive gender transition care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, in one of the most closely watched, potentially impactful cases slated to come before the high court this year.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of "general public importance." 

The petitioners argue the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has responded by insisting the law does not discriminate based on gender, arguing it sets parameters on age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and is therefore not a violation of the Constitution.

BIDEN'S SWEEPING HUNTER PARDON AT ODDS WITH LONGTIME RHETORIC ON EXECUTIVE POWER: 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW'

According to the U.S. Supreme Court website, the key question posed in the case is "whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,' Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Wednesday's oral arguments mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, giving the case importance in Tennessee and in other states across the country. 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transition care for transgender adolescents, making the case — and Wednesday's oral arguments — one of the most high-profile cases to be heard this session.  

The oral arguments have been anticipated for months. The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans will regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress next month, giving them heavy influence and, some fear, more control over the federal judiciary. 

Here's what you need to know ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments.

Who's arguing the case?

The petitioners will be represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who represented the original parties in the lawsuit.

Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, will be the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court.

The respondents in the case, namely the state of Tennessee, will be represented in court by Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice and the state attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti. 

In a court filing submitted ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, Prelogar's office argued the Tennessee law has a deliberate focus on "sex and gender conformity," asserting Senate Bill 1 "declares that its very purpose is to ‘encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex' and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.'"

"That," the federal government wrote, "is sex discrimination."

Counsel for the petitioners will argue that the Tennessee law imposes "differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth," triggering a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

HUNTER BIDEN GUN CASE TERMINATED AFTER PARDON, BUT FEDERAL JUDGE STOPS SHORT OF FULL DISMISSAL

They will also argue that upholding the ban will represent a "dangerous and discriminatory affront" to transgender minors not just in Tennessee, but across the country, a point that has been emphasized by Strangio.

The state argued in a court filing that the law "contains no sex classification" warranting the heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it said, it "creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes."

The question of scrutiny 

The Supreme Court has determined three different levels of scrutiny that help determine whether a law is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: Strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and rational basis. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires a law be passed to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to minimize harm. 

The second level of scrutiny, or "heightened scrutiny," requires the governmental body to prove its actions further an "important government interest" by using means "substantially related to that interest." 

The lowest bar, rational basis, is the most deferential of the tests and requires the law only serve a legitimate interest with a "rational connection" to the means and goals of the statute.

Overview of the arguments

Wednesday's oral arguments will center on whether banning gender transition care for minors violates protections under the Equal Protection Clause, either via gender discrimination or discrimination against their transgender status.

The petitioners in the case will argue that the Tennessee law discriminates against individuals and their right to receive the same medical treatments based on their sex. Under the law, the petitioners argued in their court filing, "an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can."

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Separately, they will argue that discriminating against individuals based on their transgender status is also sufficient to trigger higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that transgender individuals "satisfy all of the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class," including being subject to discrimination, representing a "discrete and identifiable minority" and other components outlined by the Supreme Court, thereby necessitating that heightened scrutiny be applied.

The respondents will argue that Senate Bill 1, places age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and, therefore, is not an example of unconstitutional discrimination. 

Further, they will argue that the law easily passes even the test of heightened scrutiny. The state contends it has "compelling interests" to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession."

Case history

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary inunction for part of the Tennessee ban in June, siding with the petitioners' assertion that "parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parent[s] to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children[.]"

He said the ban on most types of gender care for transgender minors would likely not survive the heightened scrutiny test under the Equal Protection Clause, since the same treatments were not banned for their non-transgender peers. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit later overturned the district court's decision and reinstated the full ban, using the lowest test of rational basis. The petitioners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to review the case.

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to remand the case to the 6th Circuit Court to hear it again, this time using the test of heightened scrutiny.

Strangio has repeatedly stressed the wide-ranging impact the Supreme Court decision could have on "countless transgender youth" of current and future generations and has described the bans as a "dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country."

Next steps

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on United States v. Skrmetti by July 2025. The Supreme Court typically issues summer decisions on cases argued during the October term.

The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s gun trial terminated further court proceedings in his case on Tuesday, in the wake of President Biden’s sweeping pardon that shields his son from being prosecuted for all offenses that he "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. 

U.S. Judge Maryellen Noreika, the presiding judge in Biden’s trial in Delaware, announced Tuesday the termination of all further proceedings in the case, citing the clemency grant signed by the outgoing president. 

Judge Noreika stopped short of dismissing the case outright, however, as requested by Hunter’s legal team. 

A Delaware jury found Hunter guilty this summer on all three federal felony firearm charges that had been brought before the court by prosecutors.

BIDEN'S SWEEPING HUNTER PARDON AT ODDS WITH LONGTIME RHETORIC ON EXECUTIVE POWER: 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW'

Prior to the sweeping pardon announcement, his sentencing date had been scheduled for Dec. 12. 

In announcing the pardon, President Biden criticized the unfair investigation and prosecution of his son, a process he said was "infected" by politics and led to a "miscarriage of justice."

"No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong," the president said in a statement Sunday.

However, some critics also noted the pardon broke with Biden's longtime promises not to pardon his son and risks further eroding the public's view of the Justice Department. 

Hunter also pleaded guilty on tax evasion charges in California, which the pardon also covers. 

The judge in that case, Judge Mark Scarsi, has not yet announced whether he will terminate the proceedings against Hunter or dismiss the case in full.

This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for updates.

The Senate GOP leader on Monday slammed decisions by two federal judges to reverse their announced retirements after Republican former President Trump won re-election in November.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized the pair of "partisan Democrat district judges" after they announced plans to "unretire" after "the American people voted to fire Democrats last month." 

"Looking to history, only two judges have ever unretired after a presidential election. One Democrat in 2004 and one Republican in 2009. But now, in just a matter of weeks, Democrats have already met that all-time record. It's hard to conclude that this is anything other than open partisanship," McConnell said in remarks delivered on the Senate floor.

In mid-November, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Ohio informed President Biden of his intention to stay on the bench after Biden had failed to nominate a replacement for him.

DEMOCRATS ADVANCE 5 MORE BIDEN JUDICIAL NOMINEES

Marbley, who was appointed by President Clinton, said that because a successor had not been confirmed, "I have therefore decided to remain on active status and carry out the full duties and obligations of the office." 

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolina, who was appointed by President Obama, has also withdrawn plans to retire, Reuters reported.

Both Marbley and Cogburn had announced plans to take senior status before the election, which would have allowed them to take reduced caseloads until the president appoints a successor. 

McConnell said their decisions to rescind their retirements after Trump won points to "a political finger on the scale." He urged the incoming Trump administration to "explore all available recusal options with these judges." 

FEDERAL JUDGE IN OHIO RESCINDS RETIREMENT AFTER TRUMP VICTORY, WITH BIDEN YET TO NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR

He also warned two sitting circuit court judges, who have announced retirements and have vacancies currently pending before the senate, against making similar decisions to "unretire." 

"Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election. It's literally unprecedented. And to create such a precedent would fly in the face of a rare bipartisan compromise on the disposition of these vacancies," McConnell said.

He was referring to a bipartisan agreement on judicial nominations last month that secured Trump's ability to appoint four crucial appellate court judges after he assumes office in January.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR FACES PRESSURE TO RETIRE AHEAD OF TRUMP TAKING OFFICE: REPORT

Republicans agreed to halt procedural delay tactics and permit Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to vote on cloture on nine of Biden's district court judges before Thanksgiving and vote to confirm them when they return after the holiday. In exchange, Democrats would pull four circuit court nominees who lack the votes to get confirmed, allowing Trump to fill those vacancies next year. 

However, a Democratic source familiar told Fox News Digital that only two of the circuit court vacancies are certain, and the other two may ultimately decide against taking senior judge status.

McConnell threatened that "significant ethics complaints" would follow swiftly if any retiring judge reversed their decision to take senior status because Trump won.

"As I repeatedly warned the judiciary in other matters, if you play political games, expect political prizes. So let's hope these judges do the right thing and enjoy their well-earned retirement and leave the politics to the political branches." 

Fox News Digital's Julia Johnson and Kelly Phares contributed to this report.