ACLU of Indiana Wins U.S. Court of Appeals Due Process Case

The order sets forth the power of the independent authority to ensure ADCRR’s health care system meets constitutional standards PHOENIX – U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued an order this past Friday, July 17, formally appointing a receiver to assume control and management of health care provided to more than 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prisons, in a long-running lawsuit against the state prison system brought by the Prison Law Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. In her order, the judge wrote that “during this multi-year, interminable litigation, the Court has identified entrenched systemic failures in Defendants’ administration of health care to the Plaintiff class, including (1) chronic understaffing and failure to enforce contractual provisions with the third-party vendor, (2) the persistence of nurse driven care and inappropriate assignment of complex patients to advanced practice practitioners instead of physicians, (3) failures in the referrals process, (4) data collection and reporting failures, and (5) inadequate resources, including funding and facilities.” In the order, Judge Silver appointed Annette Chambers-Smith as the receiver. Ms. Chambers-Smith was nominated by ADCRR in April to serve as the receiver, and she has a long history of prison administration, including successfully resolving similar health care litigation against the Ohio prison system. She served as director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections from 2019 to 2026. The order sets forth the scope of Ms. Chambers-Smith’s authority, which includes providing “leadership and management of the health care system including overseeing, supervising, and directing all ADCRR employees and contract personnel who perform administrative, financial, accounting, contractual, legal, and other operational functions required to ensure constitutional health care is provided to class members.” The judge also ordered Ms. Chambers-Smith to prepare and submit within 180 days an operational plan to address and remediate all constitutional violations in the health care system that had been previously identified by the court, with a schedule for completion and resolution of the proposed remedies, including benchmarks to measure success. The receiver is also authorized to establish the budget required for health care for class members, and to work in consultation with ADCRR, the governor, and the Legislature to fund health care. The receiver also has “the authority to hire, fire, suspend, supervise, promote, transfer, discipline, and establish compensation for all ADCRR employees and contract staff who perform services related to the health care of class members. This includes implementing additional personnel policies and creating, abolishing, or transferring positions related to the health care of class members.” “Despite more than a decade of litigation, the health care system in Arizona’s prisons remains woefully understaffed and poorly managed, resulting in disastrous outcomes for incarcerated people. Every time the court experts conduct a review, they find shocking lapses of care: a patient with an untreated infection that spread to his spine and brain after he was repeatedly dismissed by medical staff; a patient diagnosed with cancer waiting more than eight months to see an oncologist; a patient with very serious mental illness offered only superficial, non-confidential check-ins through a cell door,” said Sophie Hart, managing attorney at the Prison Law Office. “Over the last decade, the federal court has used almost every tool at its disposal to get ADCRR to address this crisis, including millions of dollars in contempt fines, enforcement orders, and appointment of experts. Nothing has worked. The only remaining option with any realistic chance of success is receivership.” “While we welcome this order, it does not erase the decades of suffering that many have endured in Arizona’s prisons. This order would not have been possible without the brave, incarcerated people who have testified and shared their experiences with the federal court,” said Lauren Beall, ACLU of Arizona senior staff attorney. “The appointment of an independent receiver reporting directly to the federal court will bring relief for the thousands of people behind prison walls, and the ACLU will remain focused on keeping ADCRR accountable to their constitutional duties.” “More than three years after Judge Silver ordered Arizona officials to make comprehensive improvements to prison medical and mental health care, and over a decade after we filed this case, the state and its for-profit health care vendors have failed to address the avoidable suffering and deaths in their prisons,” said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Appointing a receiver is a rare step reserved for the most extreme situations, but here we are. The stakes are life and death for the people in Arizona prisons who are not receiving the care they desperately need.” “For too long people in ADCRR have been placed at risk of serious harm and death because of the lack of appropriate mental health and medical care. People with disabilities are dying, and these conditions must come to an end,” said Maya Abela, deputy legal director of Disability Rights Arizona. “The injunction must be implemented so that class members can obtain the relief the court has ordered, and at this stage it is abundantly clear that the action needed to advance this goal is appointment of a receiver.” The receiver order follows 14 years of well-documented systemic health care failures in Arizona’s prisons, despite multiple court orders and over a decade of litigation. In June 2022, Judge Silver issued a sweeping order finding ADCRR had failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care, or conditions of confinement in isolation units, and in April 2023 she issued a detailed injunction requiring ADCRR to make substantial improvements to meet constitutional requirements. Since then, independent experts appointed by the judge have issued multiple reports detailing ADCRR’s failure to comply with the court’s orders or to take necessary actions to remedy the systemic failures, resulting in preventable deaths, permanent injuries, and needless suffering. The receiver order is here.

And are putting in place rules that allow them to do so

NEW YORK — One year after the Trump administration abandoned federal police oversight across the country, the American Civil Liberties Union released a report raising concerns that the patterns of excessive force and racial discrimination identified by the prior Department of Justice (DOJ) were ongoing when this administration withdrew from oversight. The report, Regressive Policing Under President Trump, provides a one-year update on the ACLU's Seven States Safety Campaign, launched shortly after the DOJ’s announcement that it was abandoning police reform across the country. The campaign focused on law enforcement agencies in seven states where federal civil rights investigations and reports confirmed widespread patterns of police abuse. These included municipal police departments and county sheriff departments in Tennessee, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Mississippi, Minnesota, and Kentucky. Through coordinated public records requests and advocacy, the campaign sought to uncover whether the constitutional violations identified by the DOJ continued despite the Trump administration's decision to walk away. “The Trump administration abandoned oversight based on the false claim that the alarming problems uncovered in the DOJ’s investigations were either untrue or had already been addressed,” said Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of policing at the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Our preliminary review of these records suggests that many of the same problems identified by the DOJ persisted at the exact moment the federal government was using those claims to justify walking away. Since then, this administration has been actively encouraging the same types of aggressive policing tactics that the DOJ has found to be dangerous and unconstitutional. If the federal government refuses to protect people’s constitutional rights, we deserve transparency about whether the known police misconduct in our communities is being taken seriously.” Last May, the ACLU and local partners submitted coordinated public records requests to police departments in seven states, seeking use-of-force reports and other records that could shed light on policing practices and patterns of misconduct. The ACLU received more than 600 use-of-force reports and additional records, though many agencies delayed or continue to withhold responsive documents in violation of state public records laws. “In Memphis, we've seen firsthand what happens when there are questions about police conduct but not enough transparency and accountability to answer them,” said Cardell Orrin, executive director of Stand for Children Tennessee. “At a time when increased state and federal law enforcement activity is raising new concerns about people's rights and safety, public access to local police records is more important than ever. The records obtained through the Seven States Safety Campaign reinforce why independent oversight and public accountability remain essential. People deserve to know whether the misconduct identified by the DOJ is continuing and whether law enforcement agencies are taking meaningful steps to change their practices and protect the rights of the communities they serve.” The ACLU’s preliminary review of the records suggests that excessive force continues to be a problem across multiple agencies, including improper escalation of force against people experiencing mental health crises, misuse of Tasers, and problematic internal review processes that may fail to identify or address improper use of force. The ACLU’s initial assessment also raises concerns that the racial discrimination identified in DOJ investigations has persisted. Many agencies resisted providing records they are legally required to share. One year later, records from numerous departments are still outstanding. The full report is available here: https://www.aclu.org/publications/regressive-policing-under-president-trump

What are the implications of having for-profit companies at the heart of American police departments?