Highest Mass. court denies early release of prisoners, despite health concerns

Vanessa Kjeldsen and Inyeong Kim

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday against the preliminary injunction to release prisoners in the state due to COVID-19 concerns.

Although the court said confined spaces in prisons can increase the chance of COVID-19 spread and infection, the current incarceration of prisoners does not violate the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court’s denial comes as a disappointment to Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, the advocacy organization that first filed the class-action suit. PLS aims to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals to better enable social distancing efforts.

Elizabeth Matos, executive director of PLS, wrote in a statement that this ruling discriminates against racial minorities and the mentally ill, as these populations are disproportionately incarcerated.

“At a time when the value of black and brown lives is being painfully contested on the street,” Matos wrote, “not to demand better and not to expect better is to accept that these lives don’t matter.”

However, those voluntarily committed for substance abuse can seek immediate release if a judge rules the risk of COVID-19 outweighs the potential harms of substance use.

To prove a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must evidence that the Massachusetts Department of Correction was “deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety.”

The justices ruled that the DOC has been abiding by federal health guidelines and is making “significant efforts” to reduce risk to inmates.
The DOC said it was satisfied with the ruling and will continue to put forth efforts to maintain health and safety in its facilities.

Justice Frank Gaziano, however, wrote that the long-term effects of isolation could threaten mental health and pave way for violations of constitutional treatment later on.

The second part of the ruling removed Gov. Charlie Baker from the case, ruling that the court did not have the power to force Baker to file an emergency release.

The class-action lawsuit is now headed back to the Superior Court.

Prisoners have been kept in their cells for 23 hours a day since early April to prevent the spread of COVID-19. An initiative launched in early May aims to bring sunlight back to inmates. But advocates say this still is not enough.

On May 11, the Massachusetts Department of Correction implemented the “fresh air” initiative, allowing prisoners to go outside for a few hours a week.

Matos wrote in an email before the ruling that the initiative has not had fair and widespread implementation.

“The ‘fresh air initiative’, although a welcome improvement, seems to only have affected a portion of the prison population of the DOC,” Matos wrote. “Many of our clients, even those in minimum security facilities, have not been able to access fresh air even two weeks after the roll out of the initiative.”

Jails and prisons have faced difficulty in implementing social distancing because of the close living quarters, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Some prisoners were denied access to fresh air and sunlight for eight weeks straight, Matos wrote before the ruling.

“It is a violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to hold people in long-term isolation like this,” Matos wrote. “Incarcerated people’s health and safety is now jeopardized by the lockdown conditions in addition to this pandemic.”

Beyond isolation, the DOC is combating the virus by releasing inmates from state and county correctional facilities. As of May 26, 1,348 inmates statewide have been released as part of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s April 3 ruling, according to the Court’s weekly report.

Phillip Kassel, executive director of Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, a state agency that provides legal advocacy for low-income individuals with mental illness, said the state’s response has been inadequate.

“The correctional authorities have been very halting and slow and inadequately willing to release prisoners,” Kassel said before the ruling.

As of May 26, 589 inmates and 329 employees in state prisons and jails have tested positive for coronavirus, according to the weekly report.

A reported 400-percent increase in the number of inmates over the age of 55 from 1993 to 2013 puts prisoners at higher risk of contracting the virus from one another and employees, who are free to come and go from the facilities, according to the JAMA study.

In Massachusetts, 50 percent of inmates are over the age of 60 or have an underlying medical condition, according to the Commissioner of Correction.

Kassel said before the ruling that he believes the solution is for authorities to release more prisoners. Detainment poses an immediate danger, he said, to those held in jail cells during a public health crisis, especially if they do not necessarily have to be.

“Those in the jails who are pending trial have not been convicted of anything,” Kassel said, “and yet, just waiting to be tried could be a death sentence for them.”