Silence in the Court: Constitutional Considerations of Prison Conditions for Deaf Inmates

Since its 1868 ratification, the Equal Protection Clause (of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Eleventh Amendment have been at legal odds, particularly regarding the issue of balancing state autonomy and the powers of the federal government. Judges and legislators frequently grapple with this tension as one amendment prohibits states from implementing any laws that would infringe upon citizens’ rights and the other establishes judicial limits. Efforts to reconcile between the two amendments become further complicated when approaching areas such as state prisons, where inmates are subjected to the executive authority of the state as opposed to the federal government. For this reason, disabled inmates, including Deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoners, suffer as the state fails to provide rightful accommodations. The failure to accommodate properly for disabled inmates underscores the critical tension between state sovereignty and equal protection of all citizens.

Jaime “Happy” Paredes, in his eight years in the Ventura County Jail, accumulated over 1,400 disciplinary write-ups whilst fighting against a sentence that would put him to death. Paredes often spent his time in solitary confinement and even lost visitation rights, access to the canteens, and yard time. Officers believed Paredes to be rebellious and defiant against law enforcement officers, however, the truth is much more simple: He couldn’t hear them. Paredes is deaf. [1] But, Paredes is not the only inmate whose deafness has led to excessive punishments. According to Staff Attorney Rita Lomio, more than seven different California county jail systems are facing lawsuits from the Prison Law Office, not to mention the 58 other county jail systems in California, similarly lacking in accommodations for disabled inmates. [2] This is not, however, an issue limited to California, nor is it simply an issue of prison standards; rather, it points to a misapplication of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA, passed in 1990, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and aims to provide equal opportunity for career, education, and public and private space access. [3] Since its passing, significant changes have been made in the U.S., including flat or ramp entrances, closed captioning on TV shows and movies, and braille signage in public places. [4] In prisons, however, it wasn’t until the early 2000s that disability rights were fully acknowledged, and since then, adequately securing them has been an egregiously slow process.

The first legal examination regarding disability rights in prisons was in Goodman v. Georgia (2006). [5] The plaintiff, Tony Goodman, an inmate with paraplegia who required the use of a wheelchair, filed a complaint alleging that his condition lacked basic accommodations. This included being confined to a small cell in which he was unable to maneuver his wheelchair as well as exclusion from various rehabilitation programs, and basic tasks including using the bathroom and eating. The larger legal question, in this case, concerned the application of the ADA in state prisons. Opposite of Goodman was the State of Georgia which argued, that the Eleventh Amendment granted the state immunity from the federal court to enforce the ADA in prisons. When the case reached the Supreme Court in 2006, the court unanimously ruled in favor of Goodman, certifying the application of the ADA to state prison conditions. This ruling would consequently allow Congress to employ the ADA to state prisons when conditions could be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, or if conditions infringe upon the rights of prisoners. However, as discriminative care for disabled prisoners continues to persist today, inmates are deprived of “fundamental constitutional liberties.” [6]

Ultimately, what the Supreme Court failed to examine in Goodman v. Georgia is the general application of the ADA to state prisons, which raises the question of what rights are specifically guaranteed to disabled inmates under the Fourteenth Amendment, or, what violations must occur for cases to be subject to the review of federal courts. [7] A report conducted by the Rocky Mountain ADA Center states that accessible services, programs, or activities, appropriate equipment, and retaliation are some examples of the services that should be provided to meet the needs and constitutional rights of disabled inmates. For Deaf inmates, this means interpreters, transcription services, assisted listening devices, as well as protection from instances in which prison officials threaten punishment against inmates who have exercised any rights protected by the ADA. [8].

The denial of suitable accommodations for not only Deaf inmates but disabled prisoners as a whole thus raises the question: “Why do incarcerated individuals with disabilities continue to ‘languish in despair, isolated, shut off and prohibited from gaining equal access to programs and services?’” [9]

Assistant Professor of Clinical Law and Faculty Director of the Disability and Civil Rights Clinic, Priyanka Nair states,  “The answer.. is multifaceted, ranging from barriers imposed upon incarcerated people by the Prison Law Reform Act (PLRA) to the fact that jail and prison officials have been "very slow to learn the . . . lesson [of the ADA]," particularly the requirement that "officials must individualize their assessment of and response to prisoners with disabilities,”. [10] Several cases such as Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018) and Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision (2019) further illuminate Professor Nair’s point

In Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018), the ACLU and the ACLU of Georgia, alongside the National Association of the Deaf and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and LLP, “filed a federal lawsuit [on] behalf of Deaf and hard of hearing people incarcerated in prisons supervised by the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC).” [11] A year later, the ACLU and ACLU of Georgia, also involved in Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision (2019), filed a similar lawsuit, alongside the National Association of the Deaf and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP; this time, they filed on behalf of “Deaf and hard of hearing individuals on probation and parole supervised by the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (GDCS).” [12] Both cases are ongoing, with Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018) last having received an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in 2021, and Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision (2019) having had their petition for permission to appeal denied in early 2023 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The complaints of both cases detail the difficulties faced by Deaf individuals at each point of their incarceration, in particular, the communication barriers unique to their disability, and how such barriers affect more than the plaintiffs’ incarceration, but even, their parole and probation. Deaf prisoners often go without a basic understanding of their charges and the details of their sentences. Jail and prison officials seem to default to denying Deaf inmates access–denying communication at disciplinary and medical meetings, rehabilitation classes, and even release prerequisite courses–putting Deaf inmates at an increased disadvantage in following their parole and probation conditions. Consequently, they frequently return to prison in violation of these conditions they were unable to understand. As a whole, the complaints classify these conditions as unconstitutional practices.

In response to the initial complaint in Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018), the defendants cite several points of defense, including the fact that “Because Plaintiffs are not being subjected to a current and ongoing deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” [13] The complaints confirm the precarious task of balancing the preservation of the Eleventh Amendment and enacting the Fourteenth Amendment–or “balancing the autonomy of the several states with the enforcement of federal law.”

Goodman v. Georgia (2006), and other Supreme Court Cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment, such as such as Kimel et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al. (2000) or City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the principle amendment backing the ADA, “have established a test,” highlighting how the Court may aim to, “both to remedy and to deter violation[s] of rights guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment’s text.” [14] This exact tension has posed barriers to the ADA, leading drafters of the act to reconsider two things: “defining what is unconstitutional conduct, and determining what is a proportionate response to remedy or deter such conduct.” [15]  Thus, how can one defend the rights guaranteed by national policy to not only Deaf inmates but also those of disabled prisoners without overstepping state jurisdiction?

A possible solution involves another constitutional consideration of the Eighth Amendment. Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018), though voluntarily dismissed in 2018, highlights this. In Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections, the same plaintiffs as those in Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections, filed a motion against the Georgia Department of Corrections, echoing violations in their complaint similar to Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018) and Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision (2019). However, Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018) focuses specifically on the “cycle of incarceration” targeting Deaf inmates, and the “human toll communication deprivation has on imprisoned Deaf people.” [16] According to Sean J. Young, Legal Director for the ACLU of Georgia, the failure to grant Deaf incarcerated individuals the same access to rehabilitative and educational programs that would grant them the rehabilitative and educational opportunities to reduce their sentences and begin a new life after prison “constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.” [17]

These issues with securing the constitutional and statutory rights of Deaf prison inmates are exacerbated by the fact that the community takes up a small percentage relative to the imprisoned population. The latest survey by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, which took place in 2016, identified that only 10% of state prisoners and 6% of federal prisoners have a hearing disability. On the other hand, an overwhelming portion of those in the criminal justice system, including jail, prison, probation, and are disabled, with 40% of the individuals in state prisons having some sort of disability. [18]

Needless to say, addressing the rights of these individuals has been a long-standing issue continuously addressed in both state and federal courts, and is only part of the larger discussion regarding the rights of the imprisoned. Nonetheless, it begs immediate solutions, one that balances issues of state sovereignty, equal protection, and cruel and usual punishment, as the cases of Deaf prisoners across all jurisdictions wait for their decisions.

 Edited by Christina Park

[1] Thomas, Rahsaan. “The Silent Treatment.” Vera Institute of Justice, January 2023. https://www.vera.org/the-human-toll-of-jail-2023/the-silent-treatment.

[2] Thomas, Rahsaan. “The Silent Treatment.” Vera Institute of Justice, January 2023. https://www.vera.org/the-human-toll-of-jail-2023/the-silent-treatment.

[3] “What Is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?” ADA National Network, 10 Apr. 2024, adata.org/learn-about-ada.

[4] “Detention & Correctional Facilities.” ADA National Network, 10 Apr. 2024, adata.org/factsheet/corrections.

[5] Goodman v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006)

[6] Goodman v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006)

[7] “Goodman v. Georgia.” American Psychological Association, 2005. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/goodman.

[8] “What Rights Do Prisoners Have under the American with Disabilities Act?” Rocky Mountain ADA. https://rockymountainada.org/resources/research/what-rights-do-prisoners-have-under-american-disabilities-act.

[9] Prianka Nair, “The ADA Constrained: How Federal Courts Dilute the Reach of the ADA in Prison Cases,” 71 Syracuse L. Rev. 791 (2021)

[10] Prianka Nair, “The ADA Constrained: How Federal Courts Dilute the Reach of the ADA in Prison Cases,” 71 Syracuse L. Rev. 791 (2021)

[11] Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections, M.D. Ga. (2018)

[12] Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision, M.D. Ga. (11th Cir. 2019)

[13] Harris v. Georgia Department of Corrections, M.D. Ga. (2018)

[14] “Goodman v. Georgia.” American Psychological Association, 2005. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/goodman.

[15] “Goodman v. Georgia.” American Psychological Association, 2005. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/goodman.

[16] Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections, M.D. Ga. (2017)

[17] Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections, M.D. Ga. (2017)

[18] Initiative, Prison Policy. “Disability.” Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/disability/#:~:text=People%20with%20disabilities%20are%20overrepresented,state%20prisons%20have%20a%20disability.