We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO TWO LOUSY LAWS
A quarter-century ago, Congress enacted a pair of laws that severely restricted the ability of prisoners to raise constitutional challenges against conditions of confinement, as well as challenge unjust and wrongful convictions. Over the last 25 years, this pair of laws — the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) — “have all but closed the federal courthouse doors to life and death lawsuits,” the ACLU complained last week in commemorating dual anniversaries of enactment of the laws.
First, the AEDPA: “This pernicious, dizzyingly complicated law created a minefield of procedural barriers and deadlines that severely limited state prisoner use of federal habeas corpus,” the ACLU said last week. What’s more, it placed severe restrictions on the filing of 28 USC § 2255 habeas corpus motions, especially successive ones. The AEDPA, according to the Washington Post, was “the first time in centuries that the legislature of a western democracy had put restrictions on the “Great Writ.”
The AEDPA took away a lot of the authority of federal judges to do their jobs. “The law creates a maze of Kafkaesque procedures that create the danger of an incarcerated person’s petition being thrown out at every turn for a failure to follow even the most minute rule,” the ACLU reported, “regardless of whether their claims have merit.”
While having its most restrictive impact on state prisoners, the AEDPA set severe time limits on the filing of 2255 motions, stripped from judges the ability to choose when a successive 2255 was appropriate instead of abusive, and seriously limited a petitioner’s right to appellate review, unless he or she first obtained a certificate of appealability granting permission to appeal.
Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996, a piece of litigation that – contrary to most laws Washington enacts – has worked all too well. The goal of the PLRA was to reduce the number of lawsuits brought by prisoners, and by that metric, it has been a phenomenal success. But now, many commentators are calling for its demise.
Passed as the nation’s prison population was exploding thanks to the war on drugs, the PLRA was supposed to weed out the sort of frivolous prisoner litigation Congress perceived as bombarding the federal courts. As The Appeal described it last week, testimony in hearings on the PLRA “focused on sensationalized and largely mythical claims about ‘a defective haircut by a prison barber, the failure of prison officials to invite a prisoner to a pizza party, and, yes, being served chunky peanut butter instead of creamy variety’. By dismissing real cries for help as frivolous, disingenuous, and opportunist, lawmakers built the PLRA on dehumanizing and inaccurate stereotypes of incarcerated men and women.”
In the 25 years since, it has become clear that the PLRA is reducing prisoner litigation — but not just by targeting frivolous claims. It cut the rate of civil rights lawsuits filed by prisoners by nearly half. “But if the goal was to somehow weed out ‘frivolous’ lawsuits in favor of meritorious claims, the Appeal argued, “then, presumably, there would have been at least some increase in the rate of successful civil rights lawsuits by incarcerated plaintiffs. Not so. Instead, the success rate of civil rights lawsuits for incarcerated plaintiffs steadily dropped after the enactment of the PLRA and despite a recent uptick is nearly identical to the success rate pre-PLRA.”
Among other provisions, the PLRA made exhaustion of remedies mandatory prior to suing. It permitted courts to throw out suits as frivolous prior to requiring an answer. And it required prisoners to pay filing fees by withholding installment payments from commissary accounts, even if the prisoner was indigent. Additionally, the PLRA makes it “hard to find representation by sharply capping attorney fees, creates high barriers to settlement, and weakens the ability of courts to order changes to prison and jail policies,” according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
Incarcerated people are still allowed to sue over unlawfully inflicted physical injury, but the PLRA restricts the remedies available in cases where people are alleging only mental or emotional harm. Some courts have interpreted this to mean that people cannot receive money damages for their prison/jail injuries unless they can show that they suffered extremely serious physical injury. Others have found that this provision applies even to Constitutional claims about free speech, religious freedom, discrimination, and due process.
As a Senator, Joe Biden tried to strip the AEDPA of its worst limitation, but President Clinton’s support for the bill doomed the effort. Now, the Post said last week, “lawmakers could consult with defense lawyers, legal scholars, federal judges and prosecutors, repeal AEDPA, and replace it with something more just and fair. The last 25 years have shown the Clinton administration should have listened to Biden in 1995. But, now, Biden’s own administration can lead an effort to fix the problems he predicted, and once tried to prevent.”
ACLU, The Unhappy 25th Birthday of Two Tough-on-Crime Era Laws That Have Deadly Consequences for Incarcerated People (April 27, 2021)
Washington Post, Opinion: Joe Biden fought this destructive law. 25 years later, he can help repeal it (April 27, 2021)
The Appeal, How The Prison Litigation Reform Act Has Failed For 25 Years (April 26, 2021)
Prison Policy Initiative, Slamming the Courthouse Door: 25 years of evidence for repealing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (April 26, 2021)
– Thomas L. Root