By Mark . . . NARSOL announces the filing of its opening appellate brief  in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case NARSOL et. al. v. Latoya Hughes, No. 24-2103. NARSOL is the lead plaintiff in the case. The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a parole restriction imposed on individuals on mandatory supervised release in Illinois for a sexual offense. In particular, plaintiffs sued the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections seeking injunctive relief from the prohibition on individuals using erectile dysfunction medication while on mandatory supervised release. Plaintiffs contend that the condition interferes with rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process component and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

At its core, however, the case is not about the particular condition being challenged. It is about the ability of individuals on parole as a general matter to challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions through the civil rights law (I.e., § 1983) as opposed to being forced to challenge these conditions through a habeas corpus petition. As things currently stand, individuals may only challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions via a habeas petition, which has the real-world effect of foreclosing individuals’ ability to challenge the constitutionality of their parole conditions at all given the burdensome requirements associated with bringing a habeas challenge and given that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in such an action. This mean that the cases, when they are brought at all, are brought pro se (on one’s own behalf, i.e., self-representation).

The lawsuit is important primarily because parole conditions have over time become increasingly intrusive and harsh. Many conditions now are categorically imposed by statute, without any individualized consideration, and intrude upon an individual’s most basic constitutional rights. They include wholesale internet restrictions, inhumane no-child-contact restrictions, and burdensome GPS requirements. Absent the ability of individuals to effectively challenge such restrictions via § 1983, individuals are forced to endure constitutionally suspect conditions for years while on criminal supervision.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas in Chicago, Illinois.

The post NARSOL’s new case fights for parolees’ rights to bring civil rights challenges over parole conditions first appeared on NARSOL.

By Mark . . . On May 31, 2024, the parties filed their opening summary judgment briefs in Antrim v. Carr, 19-cv-396 (Eastern District of Wisconsin), in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s statutory scheme requiring that certain individuals convicted of sexual offenses be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device for life, even after they are off of any criminal supervision. Attached below are each side’s opening summary judgment briefs. Response briefs in the case are due July 5, 2024. NARSOL is intimately connected to the litigation, having subsidized the full costs of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses — Kate Weisburd, a law professor at George Washington University School of Law, and Kelly Socia, Professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies and a Fellow for the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

The post NARSOL cases in Illinois and Wisconsin moving forward first appeared on NARSOL.

On Friday, January 19, 2024, NARSOL filed a federal lawsuit in Illinois challenging the constitutionality of a parole restriction that prohibits individuals with convictions for sexual offenses from using erectile dysfunction medication. The two plaintiffs in the case are NARSOL on behalf of its Illinois members and Jason Ridley, an individual on mandatory supervised release in Illinois who seeks to use ED medications to counter the common side effects caused by prostate cancer surgery. Mr. Ridley is also a member of NARSOL. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are Mark Weinberg and Adele Nicholas. The case is The National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws et al. v. Hughes, #24-cv-50025 (Northern District of Illinois). Plaintiffs seek to certify the case as a class
action.

Plaintiffs allege that the challenged statute (e.g., 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.10))
interferes with fundamental liberty interests—namely, intimate aspects of
sexuality and private medical decisions—and as such violates the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The significance of
the lawsuit goes beyond the substantive legal claims at issue.  This is so
because, under current law in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, individuals
cannot challenge statutory parole restrictions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but can
only challenge them via a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Habeas corpus petitions are often an inadequate remedy when a parole
condition violates constitutional rights because, before bringing a habeas
petition, the plaintiff must first exhaust state court remedies, which can take
years. Moreover, a plaintiff in a habeas case cannot bring a class action
lawsuit and cannot recover attorneys’ fees from the state. The federal courts
of appeals are split on the issue, and Plaintiffs seek to have the Seventh
Circuit come in line with the other circuits that allow such challenges under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

The post New NARSOL suit filed in Illinois first appeared on NARSOL.