Prisoners' Rights

Featured

Court Case
Sep 2022
An illustration featuring a historic photo incarcerated people at Angola next to a modern image of incarcerated people at Angola. The outline of Louisiana is superimposed.

Prisoners' Rights

Alex A. v. Edwards

The ƵNational Prison Project and partner civil rights attorneys filed a federal class-action lawsuit to prevent the transfer of children in the custody of Louisiana's Office of Juvenile Justice to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly known as Angola Prison.
Alex A. V. Edwards. Explore Case.
Texas
Jul 2021
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al

Prisoners' Rights

Criminal Law Reform

Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al

Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The Ƶhas been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
Sanchez Et Al V. Dallas County Sheriff Et Al. Explore Case.
Mississippi
Mar 2017
Dockery v. Hall

Prisoners' Rights

Smart Justice

Dockery v. Hall

The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for-profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCF is operated in a perpetual state of crisis where prisoners are at grave risk of death and loss of limbs. The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.
Dockery V. Hall. Explore Case.

All Cases

65 Prisoners' Rights Cases

Franklin v. Martinez
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026

Prisoners' Rights

Franklin v. Martinez

This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution—a method known as the “interstitial approach”—and embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico’s own law, history, and values. The Court’s decision could have major implications for New Mexicans’ ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
Explore case
Franklin V. Martinez. Explore Case.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Franklin v. Martinez

Prisoners' Rights

Franklin v. Martinez

This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution—a method known as the “interstitial approach”—and embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico’s own law, history, and values. The Court’s decision could have major implications for New Mexicans’ ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
Franklin V. Martinez. Explore Case.
Vail v. Dunleavy
Alaska
Jan 2026

Prisoners' Rights

Vail v. Dunleavy

Explore case
Vail V. Dunleavy. Explore Case.
Alaska
Jan 2026
Vail v. Dunleavy

Prisoners' Rights

Vail v. Dunleavy

Vail V. Dunleavy. Explore Case.
Perttu v Richards
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025

Prisoners' Rights

Perttu v Richards

The Seventh Amendment gives people a constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases seeking money damages. The Supreme Court held that incarcerated plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on questions of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, when the facts underlying exhaustion would also decide the merits of their case.
Explore case
Perttu V Richards. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2025
Perttu v Richards

Prisoners' Rights

Perttu v Richards

The Seventh Amendment gives people a constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases seeking money damages. The Supreme Court held that incarcerated plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on questions of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, when the facts underlying exhaustion would also decide the merits of their case.
Perttu V Richards. Explore Case.
State v. Bishop
Tennessee
May 2025

Prisoners' Rights

Criminal Law Reform

State v. Bishop

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Ƶof Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
Explore case
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
Tennessee
May 2025
State v. Bishop

Prisoners' Rights

Criminal Law Reform

State v. Bishop

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Ƶof Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025

Prisoners' Rights

Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections

This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Explore case
Huskey V. Oregon Department Of Corrections. Explore Case.
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections

Prisoners' Rights

Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections

This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Ƶof Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Huskey V. Oregon Department Of Corrections. Explore Case.
1
23...