Johnson v. California

Supreme Court of United States
543 U.S. 499 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

All racial classifications imposed by the government, including those in a prison setting, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. The more deferential standard of review from Turner v. Safley does not apply to equal protection challenges to race-based policies.

Facts:

The California Department of Corrections (CDC) has an unwritten policy of racially segregating inmates in double cells at its reception centers.
This segregation policy is applied to all new male inmates and all male inmates transferred from other facilities for an initial period of up to 60 days.
The CDC's stated rationale for the policy is the necessity of preventing violence caused by race-based prison gangs.
Garrison Johnson, an African-American inmate, was incarcerated in 1987 and, upon his initial entry and each subsequent transfer to a new facility, was housed in a double cell with another African-American inmate pursuant to this policy.
The segregation policy is limited to double-cell assignments in reception centers; other areas such as dining halls and exercise yards are integrated.
After the initial 60-day evaluation period, inmates are generally allowed to choose their own cellmates, and these requests are usually granted regardless of race unless there are security concerns.

Procedural Posture:

Garrison Johnson filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against CDC officials.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
On remand, after discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.
Johnson, the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the CDC officials were the appellees.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the deferential standard of review from Turner v. Safley applied and that the policy was constitutional under that standard.
Johnson's petition for rehearing en banc was denied by the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the appropriate standard of review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the deferential 'reasonably related to legitimate penological interests' standard from Turner v. Safley, rather than strict scrutiny, apply to an equal protection challenge against a state prison's policy of racial segregation?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

No. Strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for all governmental racial classifications, and the deferential standard from Turner v. Safley does not apply. The Court has consistently held that all racial classifications are immediately suspect and must be analyzed under strict scrutiny to smoke out illegitimate uses of race. The argument that the policy is 'neutral' because it applies to all races equally was rejected in Brown v. Board of Education. The right to be free from racial discrimination is not a right that is inconsistent with proper incarceration, and therefore the logic of Turner, which applies to rights that must be compromised for prison administration, is inapplicable. Applying Turner would make rank discrimination too easy to defend. While prison security is a compelling interest, officials must still demonstrate that their race-based policies are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, a determination to be made by the lower court on remand.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

The CDC's segregation policy is unconstitutional, and the Court should decide the case on the current record without a remand. The policy violates the Equal Protection Clause under any standard of review, whether strict scrutiny or the more deferential Turner test. The CDC has failed to provide any meaningful evidence to justify its 'blunderbuss' policy, which is based on overbroad stereotypes and the flawed logic that an inmate's race is a proxy for gang membership and violence. The CDC has not seriously considered obvious race-neutral alternatives, such as individualized assessments based on inmate records, which are used by the federal system and most other states. Administrative convenience cannot justify a system of racial segregation.

Dissenting - Justice Thomas

Yes. The deferential standard of review from Turner v. Safley should apply to all constitutional claims arising within prisons, including those involving racial classifications. The Constitution has always demanded less within prison walls, and courts should defer to the reasonable judgments of experienced prison officials who face the intractable problem of violent, race-based prison gangs. California's policy is limited in duration and scope and is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of protecting inmate safety. The majority's application of strict scrutiny creates a conflict, as prison officials could be found liable for 'deliberate indifference' under the Eighth Amendment if they fail to consider race and violence subsequently erupts. The Turner standard is the correct accommodation of constitutional rights with the harsh realities of prison administration.

Concurring - Justice Ginsburg

Agrees with the majority's judgment that the CDC's policy warrants rigorous scrutiny and that the case should be remanded. However, this concurrence reiterates the view that not all official racial classifications should be subject to the same standard of review. Measures designed to remedy past discrimination should not be treated the same as classifications, like the one here, that are designed to burden groups based on stereotypes. Because the CDC's policy is clearly not remedial and is based on stereotypical assumptions, applying strict scrutiny is appropriate in this case.

Analysis:

This case resolves a tension between two lines of precedent, establishing that the fundamental guarantee of equal protection against racial discrimination is not diminished within a prison context. By rejecting the deferential Turner standard for racial classifications, the Court significantly raises the burden on prison administrators to justify any race-based policy. The decision requires officials to prove that such policies are narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, forcing them to exhaust race-neutral alternatives first. This holding reinforces the principle that strict scrutiny is a universal standard for all governmental racial classifications, regardless of the context or the asserted 'benign' purpose.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Johnson v. California (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"