Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union

Last updated

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 19, 1977
Decided June 23, 1977
Full case nameJones, Secretary, Department of Correction of North Carolina, et al. v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.
Citations433 U.S. 119 ( more )
97 S. Ct. 2532; 53 L. Ed. 2d 629; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 136; 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 13,281
Case history
PriorAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Holding
Prison inmates do not have a right under the First Amendment to join labor unions.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell
ConcurrenceBurger
Concur/dissentStevens
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case where the court held that prison inmates do not have a right under the First Amendment to join labor unions. [1]

Contents

Background

Constitutional Rights for Prisoners

The First Amendment in the United States Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [2] However, this right to free speech can be dismissed in the name of public order and national security. [3]

In the distant past, prisoners were viewed as slaves of the state. This meant they were compelled to what the state chose to accord them, and forfeit their absolute freedom. However, in 1941, in Ex parte Hull, prisoners were granted the right of access to the court. This meant their right to habeas corpus could not be infringed. [4] Following the ruling it allowed prisoners to challenge infringements of other protected rights in the constitution. While prisoners continued to be subject to the state's will, administrators still were under protection of the "hands-off" doctrine. [5] This doctrine stated that the federal government would not intervene in constitutional restrictions, as long as they were inside state institutions. [6] In the 1960s the courts began to look into specific cases that may have violated prisoners' rights. [7] One example is the later case of Turner v Safley in 1987. In this case, it was determined that mail inside of prisons should continue to be controlled. This meant prisons could overrule prisoners' constitutional rights if the reasons were "reasonably related" to penological interests. [8]

Appellee Prisoners' Labor Union

The Appellee Prisoners' Labor Union was formed in 1974. The stated goal of the organization was to promote charitable labor through the union and to form labor unions at every prison and jail in North Carolina to seek better working conditions. This meant altering or eliminating practices and policies of the Department of Correction which it did not approve of. By early 1975, there were around 2,000 inmates in 40 different prison institutions throughout North Carolina. [9]

However, the State of North Carolina did not approve of this development and decided to try and eliminate unions among these prisoners. The state was in favor of individual members within the union but sought to eliminate mail, solicitation, and meetings. On March 26, 1975, activities of solicitation and group membership were banned. [10]

A week before the date on which this ruling was to go into effect, the Union filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 18, 1975. This claim was that their rights of the First Amendment, including free speech, association, and assembly activities were being stepped on. [10]

Arguments presented

The Prisoners' Labor Union of Appellee argued that their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights were violated by regulations in the North Carolina Department of Correction. These regulations did not allow prisoners to join the labor union, or solicit other prisoners to join, and they also didn't allow union meetings. [10] Jacob L. Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General of North Carolina, was the attorney for the case of the appellants. The briefing was done with Rufus L. Edmisten. [11]

The prison administration claimed that they believed the existence of a Union would significantly threaten and cause a higher burden on the discipline and control of prison administrators. Through the creation of unions, they believed that inmates would use the organization to slow work, cause stoppages, and other unwanted problems. [10] Norman B. Smith was the attorney for the case of the appellees. The briefing was done with Deborah Mailman. [11]

Ruling of the district court

The district court concluded that there was no consensus on whether or not an association of inmates was necessarily good or bad. Their statement was, "We are unable to perceive why it is necessary or essential to security and order in the prisons to forbid solicitation of membership in a union permitted by the authorities. This is not a case of a riot. There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the union has been utilized to disrupt the operation of the penal institutions." [10]

Following the ruling of the district court, it was decided that the they did not give proper deference to the decisions of prison administrators. While looking at the argument, the natural laws of protection for officials inside prisons were overlooked. People against the ruling stated that it was only natural that prison administrators would have to impose limits on constitutional rights, including those from the First Amendment. [5]

Mr. Justice Rehnquist gave the decision from the court William Rehnquist.jpg
Mr. Justice Rehnquist gave the decision from the court

Supreme Court decision

The Court's decision was given on June 23, 1977. [10] This ruling was given by Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. The Supreme Court sided with the administrators of the prison. The final ruling was 7–2. The reasons given were as follows:

Future implications

The conclusion that the presence of a prisoners' union would be detrimental has not been conclusively shown to be false. [12] However, since the ruling, there have been many arguments made in favor of overturning the ruling. Additionally, arguments were made to justify maintaining the rule.

David L. Jones, Secretary of North Carolina Correction, 1973-1977 David L. Jones.jpg
David L. Jones, Secretary of North Carolina Correction, 1973-1977

Arguments in favor

Arguments against the decision

Impact and legacy

Since the decision of the Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union case, there currently are talks about how much the court can intervene with the operations of the prison system, mostly with how much the correctional officers inside the prison can intervene with the First Amendment rights of the prisoners. In Goodwin v. Oswald, the Second Circuit Court looked at a case of a warden withholding mail from an inmate and decided that based on the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, it was determined that the withholding of mail from an inmate was unjustifiable and unconstitutional under the mentioned amendments. [12] It is important not to view the impact of the prisoners' rights movement in too narrow of a view. From a sociopolitical standpoint, it is important to recognize that the prisoners' movement is built on the backs of a minoritized group. Similarly to other movements like Civil Rights or Feminist movement, it is very a difficult and strenuous process for groups of prisoners to speak out. [14]

Over the course of the 1970s, 11,195 prisoners' rights petitions were filed in federal courts. This marked a 451% increase from 1970. While many of these cases are done without representation for the prisoners, those cases that do go further are supported by a more highly skilled group of lawyers. The ACLU's National Prison Project has been the main catalyst for prison litigation experience. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1865 Reconstruction amendment abolishing slavery except as punishment for a crime

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War.

Disfranchisement, also disenfranchisement or voter disqualification is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting. High barriers to entry to the political competition can disenfranchise political movements.

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), is a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling that held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilization of criminals are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The relevant Oklahoma law applied to "habitual criminals" but excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties.

Holt v. Sarver was a court decision that was the first in a series of American common law cases that have found entire state prison systems in violation of prisoners' constitutional rights by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech. The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.

Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), facilities that accept federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of what a prisoner must plead in order to claim a violation of Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the Court held that a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Though the Court credited Gamble's complaint that doctors had failed to provide appropriate care, it held that medical malpractice did not rise to the level of "cruel and unusual punishment" simply because the victim is a prisoner.

Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, Ronald Banks, challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy of denying access to written material such as newspapers and magazines, to violent inmates, on the grounds that the policy was a violation of his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."

Jailhouse Jesus is the colloquial term for an observed psychological phenomenon of new inmates to 'find religion' during their incarceration. Whether it comes from a genuine desire to "repent", an appeal to authority, or other factors is a subject for debate.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a prison official's "deliberate indifference" to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer built on two previous Supreme Court decisions addressing prison conditions, Estelle v. Gamble and Wilson v. Seiter. The decision marked the first time the Supreme Court directly addressed sexual assault in prisons.

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy filed the majority opinion of the 5 to 4 decision, affirming a decision by a three judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California which had ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years.

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solitary confinement in the United States</span> Form of strict imprisonment in the United States

In the United States penal system, upwards of 20 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 18 percent of local jail inmates are kept in solitary confinement or another form of restrictive housing at some point during their imprisonment. Solitary confinement (sometimes euphemistically called protective custody, punitive segregation (PSEG) or room restriction) generally comes in one of two forms: "disciplinary segregation," in which inmates are temporarily placed in solitary confinement as punishment for rule-breaking; and "administrative segregation," in which prisoners deemed to be a risk to the safety of other inmates, prison staff, or to themselves are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, often months or years.

In the United States of America, Prisoner Law refers to litigation that determines the freedoms that a prisoner either holds or loses when they are incarcerated. This includes the end of the Hands- Off Doctrine and the ability to be protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, prisoner laws regulate the ways in which individuals experience privacy in a prison setting. Important case laws have arisen through time that have either hindered or protected prisoners from certain rights. Some include the Hudson v. Palmer case which held that prisoners were not protected against searches and seizures of their prison cells and Wolff v. McDonnell that stated that prisoners shall remain entitled to some of their constitutional rights even after being incarcerated.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also held that an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee "does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists," extending Parratt v. Taylor to intentional torts.

References

  1. Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977).
  2. "The Constitution". The White House. Retrieved March 27, 2023.
  3. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258,267 (1967) ("[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it does not withdraw from the Government the power to safeguard its vital interests.").
  4. "Ex parte HULL. No. —-, Original". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2023.
  5. 1 2 Gluck, Alan H. "Prisoners’ Free Speech Rights: The Right to Receive Publications." Washington University Law Review 1977.4 (1977): 649-685.
  6. Fox, Barry M. “The First Amendment Rights of Prisoners.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, vol. 63, no. 2, 1972, pp. 162–84. JSTOR,
  7. Giles, Cheryl Dunn (1993). "Turner v. Safely and its Progeny: A Gradual Retreat to the Hands- Off Doctrine". Arizona Law Review. 35: 219–236.
  8. Sweeney, Megan (May 2007). "Beard v. Banks: Deprivation as Rehabilitation". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 122 (3): 779–783. doi: 10.1632/pmla.2007.122.3.779 . ISSN   0030-8129. S2CID   159681370.
  9. Tibbs, Donald F. From Black Power to Prison Power : The Making of Jones V. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union . Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 1 April 2023. Chapter 9
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc". Oyez. Retrieved April 1, 2023.
  11. 1 2 Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., vol. 433, April 19, 1977, p. 119, retrieved April 19, 2023
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Falkof, Bradley B. (1979). "Prisoner Representative Organizations, Prison Reform, and Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union: An Argument for Increased Court Intervention in Prison Administration". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 70 (1): 42–56. doi:10.2307/1142963. ISSN   0091-4169. JSTOR   1142963.
  13. "RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE - INMATE INVOLVEMENT IN PRISON ADMINISTRATION | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved May 9, 2023.
  14. 1 2 Jacobs, James B. (1980). "The Prisoners' Rights Movement and Its Impacts, 1960-80". Crime and Justice. 2: 429–470. doi:10.1086/449074. ISSN   0192-3234. JSTOR   1147419. S2CID   145076332.