High court: State can't segregate inmates

High court: State can't segregate inmates
Justices allow rare exceptions, such as for gang affiliations
Justices allow only very limited exceptions to rule

Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 24, 2005

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/24/SCOTU
S.TMP&nl=top

The U.S. Supreme Court all but barred California prison
officials Wednesday from continuing their long-standing practice
of segregating inmates by race during their first 60 days in a
prison.

In a 5-3 decision, five of the eight justices said that a policy
of racial segregation in prison is allowed only in extraordinary
circumstances, and a sixth, John Paul Stevens, although he
dissented from the majority, said the policy was flatly
unconstitutional.

California officials had argued that the policy, apparently
unique in the nation, was justified by the fear of violence from
prison gangs organized along racial lines.

"By insisting that inmates be housed only with other inmates of
the same race, it is possible that prison officials will breed
further hostility among prisoners and reinforce racial and
ethnic divisions,'' said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing
for the five-member majority.

The ruling does not restrict prison officials' authority to
separate inmates for other reasons, such as established gang
affiliation. But dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas said
officials may lack information about gang membership and should
be allowed to decide, without judicial second-guessing, whether
initial separation of the races would reduce the likelihood of
violence.

"The majority is concerned with sparing inmates the indignity
and stigma of racial discrimination,'' Thomas said. "California
is concerned with their safety and saving their lives.''

Justice Antonin Scalia joined Thomas' dissent. Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, suffering from thyroid cancer, did not take
part in the ruling.

The state's policy has been in effect for more than 20 years. It
requires officials at reception centers, where new inmates are
placed while undergoing classification, to choose cellmates by
racial and ethnic groups and subgroups. For example, prisoners
of Chinese and Japanese descent are not paired, and Latinos from
Northern and Southern California are kept apart because of a
history of gang conflicts.

After 60 days, inmates are transferred to permanent housing and
generally can choose their own cellmates, officials said. Other
aspects of prison life -- including meals, jobs and recreation,
are not officially segregated -- although some prison guards say
racial separation is common.

The court returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San
Francisco to measure the state's policy against the strict new
standard and observed that the dangers of prison "may justify
racial classifications in some contexts.'' Stevens, in his
separate opinion, said a recent race riot at a prison might
justify temporary segregation.

But lawyers who opposed the state's practice said it was doomed
by the ruling.

"There's no way that this policy can stand,'' said Bert Deixler,
attorney for Garrison Johnson, the inmate who challenged the
policy in 1995. Johnson, a convicted murderer, was housed with a
fellow African American after entering prison in 1987 and after
each of several transfers to new prisons.

Deixler said the court's standard, the same one it uses to judge
other racial classifications, can be satisfied only by a policy
that is precisely drawn to achieve a vital goal that cannot be
met by nonracial measures. California's policy, he said, was
applied across the board more than 300,000 times last year,
mostly after transfers.

Deixler also said the only long-term study of prison
segregation, based on Texas prisons before and after they were
desegregated by court order in the 1970s, showed that integrated
cells were less violent. Michael Small, a lawyer for former
prison directors in six states, said the study confirmed their
view that integration helped to break down racial stereotypes
and that California's inflexible policy did more harm than good.

But Thomas, in his dissent, said long-term data would not
contradict California officials' assessment that segregation
promotes peace among newly arrived inmates, who might want to
prove themselves with a show of force.

California Corrections Department spokeswoman Margot Bach said
department officials were reviewing the ruling, and noted that
the appeals court must still decide the validity of California's
policy.

State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, moved quickly to
implement the ruling by introducing a bill that would ban
segregation in the prison system. The court's decision
"reaffirms this nation's commitment to a color-free society,''
she said.

The case is Johnson vs. California, 03-636.

------
California policy
How it works: Officials at the state's prisons must choose
cellmates according to racial and ethnic groups and subgroups.
After 60 days, inmates are sent to permanent housing and are
usually allowed to choose their own cellmates.

Some examples: Prisoners of Chinese and Japanese descent are
separated, as are Latinos from Northern and Southern California.

What happens now: The court returned the case to the U.S. Court
of Appeals in San Francisco, which will determine whether the
state's policy meets the new standard.

©2005 San Francisco Chronicle