City asks judge to halt solitary ban
/
The Adams administration this week asked a judge to pause the coming implementation of a law banning solitary confinement in the city’s jails. AP file photo by Bebeto Matthews
By Jacob Kaye
The Adams administration said this week that it plans to mount a legal challenge to a law banning solitary confinement in New York City’s jails, around two months before it is supposed to go into effect.
In a filing in federal court late Wednesday, attorneys for City Hall said that they planned to challenge the city’s solitary confinement ban, which was vetoed by Mayor Eric Adams but passed into law after the City Council overrode his veto in January.
The Adams administration argued in its filing that implementing the ban on solitary confinement as outlined in the Council’s law would violate the consent judgment in the ongoing civil rights case known as Nunez v. the City of New York.
The city’s attorneys called on federal Judge Laura Swain, who oversees the case, to suspend the law until the federal monitor Swain appointed to track the Department of Correction’s compliance with the consent judgment has had time to approve its implementation.
The monitor, Steve J. Martin, has previously called into question the DOC’s ability to safely implement the law, while also lauding its intention.
A spokesperson for the mayor’s office pointed to Martin’s assessment when asked for comment on the filing.
“As Mayor Adams and the federal monitor have stated, [the ban on solitary confinement] could endanger both our Department of Correction staff and those in our care,” the spokesperson said. “The monitor has previously stated that this bill could impede our ability to comply with the Nunez court orders, which is why we are requesting further evaluation from the judge.”
During an unrelated interview with DOC Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie on Wednesday just prior to the city’s filing, the commissioner told the Eagle that the agency was “working with the Law Department on [the law’s] implementation.”
When asked specifically if that meant the city would be challenging the law in court, Maginley-Liddie said, “We’ve just been working with the Law Department on next steps.”
Maginley-Liddie took office just as the Council was preparing to pass the ban on solitary confinement bill in December.
Like Adams, Maginley-Liddie and her predecessor, Louis Molina, claim that the DOC no longer uses solitary confinement – advocates, public defense attorneys, lawmakers and formerly incarcerated New Yorkers say that solitary has effectively continued in a different name.
Nonetheless, the Adams administration has expressed staunch opposition to the bill both before and after its passage.
The fight over the bill was a contentious one. After being passed by the Council with a 39-7 vote at the final meeting of the 2023 legislative session, the bill was quickly vetoed by the mayor.
Almost a month after originally passing the bill, the Council overrode the mayoral veto, voting 42-9 in support of the legislation.
Now, with the city’s filing in federal court, the fight over the bill continues.
In a statement to the Eagle, a City Council spokesperson defended the bill and questioned City Hall’s motivation for attempting to block it from being implemented.
“Solitary confinement has been internationally recognized as torture and has led to the deaths of people subjected to it in New York City, while leaving others with severe mental and physical harm,” the spokesperson said. “With over two dozen deaths of people in our jail system since 2022 and the ongoing risk to the health and safety of staff and people detained on Rikers every day, it is puzzling that this administration would continue fighting endlessly to block a duly enacted law that prohibits solitary confinement.”
Public Advocate Jumaanee Williams, who sponsored the legislation, was more scathing in his rebuke of the city’s court filing on Thursday.
“The administration clearly has the resources to implement the law,” Williams said in a statement to the Eagle. “Instead, they’re using those resources to try to continue the capability of prolonged isolation and preserve the status quo on Rikers.”
“I had hoped that when the Council overrode the mayor’s veto by more votes than the bill was originally passed, the mayor would work faithfully to implement the law and improve conditions on Rikers — I’m disappointed that he’s instead decided to waste time and resources while this irreversible harm continues in city jails,” Williams added.
The Legal Aid Society, which represents the plaintiffs in Nunez v. the City of New York, did not respond to a request for comment before print time.
Last month, the Board of Correction, which sets the minimum standards for detention in the city’s jails, released its proposed rules for the solitary confinement ban’s implementation ahead of its July 28 start date.
The rules, which will be discussed at a BOC meeting on June 17, detail what the DOC can and can’t do while placing a detainee who is alleged to have committed an offense into restrictive housing.
Under the rules, incarcerated individuals would be prevented from being held in an isolated cell for more than two hours per day within a 24-hour period and for more than eight hours at night directly after an alleged offense occurred – the confinement would be referred to as a “de-escalation” period. Should corrections officials determine that further confinement is required to de-escalate a situation, an incarcerated person could be held for up to four hours total in a 24-hour period.
The law would also allow for people in custody being placed in restrictive housing to have a hearing on whether or not their placement in restrictive housing is necessary. During that hearing, they would be allowed to be represented by an advocate, be it a lawyer, law student, paralegal or another incarcerated person.
The city’s request to Swain to delay the law’s implementation comes as she is considering whether or not to strip the city of its control of Rikers Island and hand it over to a court-appointed authority known as a federal receiver.
Last week, the Legal Aid Society submitted its final arguments in support of receivership in the case. They argue that in the eight years since the start of the consent judgment, the agency has been unable to meaningfully reduce violent conditions at Rikers Island and that an outside authority with powers that extend beyond those currently given to the DOC should be given the chance to take the reins at the notoriously dangerous jail.
The city has argued that it not only has proven itself capable of managing the jail complex, but that it should be given more time to continue to correct conditions there.
In the coming weeks, the public defense firm, federal prosecutors and the monitor will meet with the city and together craft a joint status report detailing where they all stand on receivership.
They’ll next all appear before Swain in court on July 9.
