Facts
- Garrison S. Johnson, an African-American California state prisoner, challenged a California Department of Corrections policy used in reception centers for new arrivals and transferees.
- Under the policy, inmates were temporarily assigned to double cells based on race for up to 60 days each time they entered a new facility.
- Prison officials justified the race-based assignments as necessary to reduce violence associated with racially organized prison gangs.
- Johnson alleged the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to officials on qualified-immunity grounds and evaluated the policy under Turner v. Safley’s deferential “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” standard.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Turner supplied the governing standard and concluding the policy was reasonably related to concerns about racial violence.
Issues
- Whether a prison policy that expressly classifies inmates by race for temporary double-cell assignments is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Whether Turner v. Safley’s deferential “reasonable relationship” test displaces strict scrutiny for explicit racial classifications in prisons.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held strict scrutiny is the proper standard for an equal protection challenge to the policy because it is an express racial classification.
- The Court declined to decide whether the policy ultimately satisfies strict scrutiny, leaving that determination to the lower courts on remand.
Legal Principles
- Government-imposed racial classifications are “immediately suspect” and must be analyzed under strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring.
- Turner v. Safley’s deference for general prison regulations does not replace strict scrutiny when the regulation is an explicit racial classification.
- A policy’s asserted “neutrality” (segregating all racial groups) does not reduce the level of constitutional scrutiny; equal treatment in segregation does not avoid close review.
- Prison security and prevention of racial violence may constitute compelling interests, but reliance on race must still be narrowly tailored, including consideration of nonracial, individualized alternatives.
- The existence of prison security concerns does not create a categorical prison-context exception to strict scrutiny for race-based governmental action.
Conclusion
The Court required strict scrutiny for race-based temporary cell assignments in prisons, rejecting the view that Turner deference governs such classifications, and remanded for application of compelling-interest and narrow-tailoring analysis.