Sunday, Nov. 19, 2023 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
On Monday, the six conservative justices of our nation’s highest court decided that the basic human rights of prisoners to access fresh air, sunlight and the opportunity for exercise were not even worthy of the court’s consideration. While it is not often that we address on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not hear a case, the callous disregard for basic human rights and human decency displayed by the court cannot be allowed to pass without comment.
The case revolved around Michael Johnson, a prisoner at the Pontiac Correctional Center in Illinois. Despite being known to have significant diagnosed mental illnesses, Johnson was held in solitary confinement and without exercise or yard privileges for three years.
The gruesome details of his confinement are almost unimaginable. Yet Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took the opportunity to describe the circumstances in vivid detail in a scathing dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
“Johnson spent nearly every hour of his existence in a windowless, perpetually lit cell about the size of a parking space,” Jackson wrote. “His cell was poorly ventilated, resulting in unbearable heat and noxious odors. The space was also unsanitary, often caked with human waste.”
“And because Pontiac officials would not provide cleaning supplies to Johnson unless he purchased them from the commissary, he was frequently forced to clean that filth with his bare hands,” Jackson continued. “Johnson was allowed out of his cell to shower only once per week, for 10 brief minutes.”
“The cramped confines of Johnson’s cell prevented him from exercising there. Thus, for three years, Johnson had no opportunity at all to stretch his limbs or breathe fresh air.”
Despite those tragic and gruesome details, the six-member conservative majority declined to hear the case, effectively upholding a lower court decision that Johnson is not entitled to breathe fresh air or exercise. The majority provided no explanation.
This is unacceptable.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. As the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, the court has an obligation to weigh in on what the phrase “cruel and unusual” means. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court effectively overturned decades of legal precedent regarding the basic rights of prisoners, including a precedent established by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
In 1979, as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Kennedy wrote that, “Some form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well-being of the inmates. … It was cruel and unusual punishment for a prisoner to be confined for a period of years without opportunity to go outside except for occasional court appearances, attorney interviews and hospital appointments.”
Beyond the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the court’s decision also represents a step back in the pursuit of American ideals of redemption and second chances.
More than 100,000 people are being held in solitary confinement right now in the United States. These prisoners include children, teenagers and people with mental illnesses like Johnson. An estimated 25% of these inmates have been held in solitary conditions for months or even years at a time. It’s dehumanizing and can, unsurprisingly, make prisons and communities less safe by reducing the ability of inmates to interact with one another, increasing the potential for violent behavior and worsening symptoms of mental illnesses.
In July, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., introduced the End Solitary Confinement Act, which would end solitary confinement of more than four hours in federal facilities; protect vulnerable prisoners, such as children and those with mental health conditions, from being placed in solitary confinement; and create strict due process protections for people held in long-term solitary confinement. The legislation capitalizes on the lessons learned by a small group of states that successfully reformed solitary confinement practices and saw rapid reductions in assaults on prison staff and increased enrollment in rehabilitation programs.
The day after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Bush spoke at an online rally against solitary confinement, where she asserted that, “We are using taxpayer money to torture people.” She went on to emphasize that, “The catastrophic harms of solitary confinement are indisputable. … This punitive and violent tactic does not improve safety. It is long past time to prohibit its use.”
The congresswoman concluded her remarks by adding that, “In moments like these, we are called upon to recognize the common humanity in one another.”
We agree.
As then-President Barack Obama wrote in 2016, “The United States is a nation of second chances, but the experience of solitary confinement too often undercuts that second chance.”
In a criminal justice system that claims to value rehabilitation, eliminating prisoners’ ability to interact with sunlight, fresh air and each other for long periods of time cannot be justified. While there may be some limited instances in which short-term solitary confinement is appropriate, the evidence is clear that long-term solitary confinement causes far greater harm than good.
The court’s refusal to even hear Michael Johnson’s case is cowardly, shameful and dehumanizing. But perhaps worst of all, it results in bad public policy that makes our prisons and communities less safe.
We encourage Nevada’s congressional delegation and Nevada lawmakers to stop waiting for the court to grow a spine and to instead pass the End Solitary Confinement Act.
