Characteristics of Structural Injunctions

1. Characteristics of Structural Injunctions • Involve issues of public/constitutional law • Complexity • Public’s interest is a significant factor in decision to grant/deny injunctions

2. The appropriate scope of structural injunctions: • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971): • "[The Court’s] task is to correct . . . the condition that offends the Constitution. Judicial powers may be exercised on the basis of a constitutional violation. The nature of the constitutional violation determines the scope of the remedy.” • Raises 2 questions: • To what is P constitutionally entitled? • What remedy puts P in their rightful position?

3. What conditions give rise to the district court’s original finding in Hutto that “punitive isolation” amounts to “cruel and unusual” punishment? • Cell overcrowding • No furniture/flushable toilet • Filthy mattresses/only at night • 1,000 calorie grue diet • Indeterminate length of confinement (?)

4. District court’s 4th hearing re “punitive isolation” (1974): Continuing problems: Court ordered: • Continued overcrowding/lack of beds • Violent guards due to insufficient numbers • Grue diet • Vandalized cells • Prisoners were left in isolation for long periods (months) with release depending on subjective assessment of “attitude” • Limits on number of men confined in one cell • Each man have own bunk • Discontinue grue diet • 30 day maximum sentence in punitive isolation

5. The relationship between the length of “punitive isolation” and the constitutionality of prison conditions • How does length of “punitive isolation” factor into finding of unconstitutionality? • Standing alone would DCT have found indefinite duration unconstitutional?

6. If indefinite confinement in punitive isolation is not “per se” unconstitutional, is the court’s order limiting confinement to 30 days appropriate? Yes: No:

7. Hutto v. Finney – Judicial Tailoring & Structural Injunctions When a court issues injunctions with this kind of specificity is it performing judicial or legislative functions? Why might some see that as a problem? What is the Hutto Court’s attitude toward tailoring?

8. Lewis v. Casey • Facts: Arizona prisoners brought class action lawsuit claiming that law libraries and legal assistance provided to them were inadequate and violated their right of access to the courts. • DCT: Ordered a number ofsystem-wide changes to remedy these inadequacies. • Legal services for non-english speakers, illiterate prisoners, prisoners in lockdown, improved library facilities

9. Lewis v. Casey -- the Supreme Court What does the Supreme Court hold regarding the injunction? What does the Court’s opinion suggest about its concept of rightful position and the appropriate scope of injunctions?

10. Can we reconcile Lewis and Hutto? • Maybe not • The two cases are factually different. • Hutto – involved systemwide problems in a scenario in which it was difficult to separate violations • Lewis – involved non-systemwide problems with more discrete violations • But Lewis probably also represents the modern SCT trend of more narrowly tailoring injunctions and requiring concrete harm