Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of irreparable harm. There are at least 369 casesThe conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court - the court of last resort - has become a court of early resort. Spurning the principle that justice must pass through reflection the conservative majority of the high court has been frequently blocking injunctions issued by courts below in cases that have gone against the preferences of the Trump administration.
of COVID‐19 in the Jail. Without additional measures to abate the spread, more inmates will
contract the disease. Undoubtedly some will die. Certainly, there is no greater irreparable
harm than death. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (holding that the Constitution
protects those in detention against “a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to
cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” );
The latest - a District Court order protecting prisoners from covid19 - has been stayed by 5-4 vote over a vigorous dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg.
The gravamen of Justice Sotomayor's dissent - the most recent in a string of orders by the Supreme Court blocking injunctions issued by District Judges - is this. Injunctions (a stay is an injunction) like other such relief is premised on a determination that the side seeking the relief is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits. What alarms Sotomayor is that the Supreme Court is granting such relief after scant review of the record developed by the judge(s) below.
We all know that once a judge has declared the likely winner that the court is unlikely to reverse its first expressed decision. The Supreme Court is therefore putting a heavy thumb on the cases it stays as they work their way through the trial court to the Courts of Appeals, and finally the Supreme Court. When we look for partisanship in judicial decision-making this is a good place to start.
Ordinarily a court is most likely to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo - since an immediate order could render a contrary final decision pointless.
But what is the status quo? For the five firm conservatives on the Supreme Court the status quo seems to be whatever the authorities are doing at the moment they are sued. See, for example, the asylum cases where the status quo was long to hear all applications. But the Trump administration blocked enforcement of the asylum laws. That became the favored status quo for SCOTUS conservatives. - gwc
Sotomayor Blasts Court For Again Backing Jail In Virus Case - Law360
Law360 (August 6, 2020, 4:02 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted an order forcing a jail in Orange County, California, to take several measures to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus in their facility, triggering a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has sounded the alarm on the vulnerability of prisoners during the pandemic.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's conservative majority stayed an injunction won by inmates for the jail to ramp up its efforts to contain the virus, which at the time had already infected 369 detainees. The district court's order called for increased social distancing, more protective equipment and hygiene protocols along with daily tests for class members.
Orange County had decried the injunction as overkill, arguing that it went beyond even what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in their guidance for correctional facilities and "hamstrings" them from taking an "effective and fluid COVID-19 response."
The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court apparently agreed, temporarily blocking the injunction until the Ninth Circuit rules on the county's appeal in the case. The majority did not explain the reason behind their decision to grant the stay Wednesday.
All four liberal justices recorded dissents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, went further and wrote an opinion spelling out her frustration with the majority's decision to lift the injunction. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined that opinion.
There was no reason for the Supreme Court's "extraordinary intervention" in the case, when the district court and Ninth Circuit applied "well-established law" to the facts of the case, Justice Sotomayor said. Specifically, there is no reason to second-guess the lower court's conclusions that the jail misrepresented its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak.
"The District Court found that, despite knowing the severe threat posed by COVID-19 and contrary to its own apparent policies, the jail exposed its inmates to significant risks from a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Yet this court now intervenes, leaving to its own devices a jail that has misrepresented its actions to the district court and failed to safeguard the health of the inmates in its care."
Orange County and the inmates painted a starkly different picture of the conditions in their filings to the Supreme Court. The county said that it has gone through extreme lengths to combat the disease, releasing 53% of the inmate population and improving hygiene protocols.
The inmates, however, say the jail is still gripped by the COVID-19 crisis and that they are crammed together in day rooms without social distancing, adequate soap, face masks or testing. The county's representations that it has contained the outbreak are false, and positive cases skyrocketed 1,400% from the end of June to the end of July, they said.
Justice Sotomayor has been sounding the alarm on the vulnerability of prisoners during the pandemic for months. In May, she issued a statement also joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying "the stakes could not be higher" for those who are incarcerated when it comes to protections against the disease.
"It has long been said that a society's worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons," Sotomayor wrote. "That is all the truer in this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm. May we hope that our country's facilities serve as models rather than cautionary tales."
The parties could not be reached Thursday for comment.
The prisoners are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of California Irvine School of Law Civil Rights Litigation Clinic and Covington & Burling LLP.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's conservative majority stayed an injunction won by inmates for the jail to ramp up its efforts to contain the virus, which at the time had already infected 369 detainees. The district court's order called for increased social distancing, more protective equipment and hygiene protocols along with daily tests for class members.
Orange County had decried the injunction as overkill, arguing that it went beyond even what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in their guidance for correctional facilities and "hamstrings" them from taking an "effective and fluid COVID-19 response."
The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court apparently agreed, temporarily blocking the injunction until the Ninth Circuit rules on the county's appeal in the case. The majority did not explain the reason behind their decision to grant the stay Wednesday.
All four liberal justices recorded dissents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, went further and wrote an opinion spelling out her frustration with the majority's decision to lift the injunction. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined that opinion.
There was no reason for the Supreme Court's "extraordinary intervention" in the case, when the district court and Ninth Circuit applied "well-established law" to the facts of the case, Justice Sotomayor said. Specifically, there is no reason to second-guess the lower court's conclusions that the jail misrepresented its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak.
"The District Court found that, despite knowing the severe threat posed by COVID-19 and contrary to its own apparent policies, the jail exposed its inmates to significant risks from a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Yet this court now intervenes, leaving to its own devices a jail that has misrepresented its actions to the district court and failed to safeguard the health of the inmates in its care."
Orange County and the inmates painted a starkly different picture of the conditions in their filings to the Supreme Court. The county said that it has gone through extreme lengths to combat the disease, releasing 53% of the inmate population and improving hygiene protocols.
The inmates, however, say the jail is still gripped by the COVID-19 crisis and that they are crammed together in day rooms without social distancing, adequate soap, face masks or testing. The county's representations that it has contained the outbreak are false, and positive cases skyrocketed 1,400% from the end of June to the end of July, they said.
Justice Sotomayor has been sounding the alarm on the vulnerability of prisoners during the pandemic for months. In May, she issued a statement also joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying "the stakes could not be higher" for those who are incarcerated when it comes to protections against the disease.
"It has long been said that a society's worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons," Sotomayor wrote. "That is all the truer in this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm. May we hope that our country's facilities serve as models rather than cautionary tales."
The parties could not be reached Thursday for comment.
The prisoners are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of California Irvine School of Law Civil Rights Litigation Clinic and Covington & Burling LLP.
nice post such useful information thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteIntervention Order Lawyer
Applying For Intervention Order