Johnson v. California

The United States currently has more than 5,000 adult prisons and jails, each with its own design features, staffing ratios, design and operational capacity, offender population, and resource level. In these facilities, administrators are responsible for maintaining order and preventing violent incidents. Risk assessment and classification are useful tools for managing inmate populations, and since 2005 they have become even more critical for prison culture as U.S. jails and prisons are no longer able to segregate inmates—based on their racial and/or ethnic background alone—for extended periods of time within the institution. According to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons:

This entry examines the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. California (2005), which [Page 414]examined the constitutionality of segregating inmates based on race.

The Johnson case stemmed from the unofficial policy of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) of segregating new inmates, two per cell, for a 60-day evaluation and assessment period. In testimony before the Court, officials from the CDC asserted that the rationale behind pairing inmates in cells by race or ethnicity during the risk assessment and classification period was to offset potential violence caused by racial gangs existing within the state's correctional system. The key questions facing the Court were whether institutional security overrode the prohibition of segregating public institutions imposed by its decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and whether this temporary housing of inmates by race or ethnicity constituted “segregation” as defined in Brown. Indeed, lower court testimony included confirmation that a number of states utilize the “pairing” of inmates of the same race or ethnic background for a limited duration (from hours to days) when an inmate is transferred to a new facility. However, inmate background characteristics are considered ahead of race or ethnicity in these circumstances, such as type of offense, age, and gang affiliation (if any). California's unwritten policy of segregating by race or ethnicity for as long as 60 days was unique in American corrections.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was based on the traditionally recognized “institutional needs” of correctional facilities that justify restrictions on the individual rights of inmates. Broadly categorized, these institutional needs include maintenance of institutional order, maintenance of institutional security, safety of prison inmates and staff, and rehabilitation of inmates. The Ninth Circuit ruled that prisoner safety and institutional control were legitimate correctional interests, and therefore, any infringement upon the plaintiff's individual rights was superseded by the interests of the facility and did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Counsel for the State of California had successfully argued that the CDC's policy could be interpreted as falling under the institutional needs of order maintenance and security and therefore should not be reviewed under the standard of “strict scrutiny.” Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review within a hierarchy of standards that U.S. courts use to weigh asserted government interests against the constitutional rights of citizens.

...