The Supreme Court has harnessed the 9th Circuit on habeas corpus and now must put an end to the doctrine of institutional reform imposed by these judges on state governments. The ability to institute policy reforms on sovereign states by a federal court is indefensible. The Supreme Court spoke on this several years ago commenting on the issues this practice imposed on federalism, comity, and compulsion of state governments to adjust budgets passed by its legislature. California has already experienced this practice when a three judge panel decided state prisoners needed supervision of their prison’s medical conditions by a court appointed Monitor. Now Arizona has felt the same judicial lash.
According to the complaint filed in district court by numerous inmates in Arizona state prisons, the medical conditions and services of all facilities were deplorable. They sought a class action of all state court prisoners, 33,000 of them, to correct a system that includes a wide variety of inmates with medical problems and those who had no problems. The district court certified the class. The State of California appealed to the 9th Circuit whose judges affirmed the order. Incredibly, on rehearing the majority of judges affirmed the judgment.
Several judges submitted a dissent of this absurd opinion. As the minority pointed out, prisoners with no medical problems could not be a part of a class of those who do, but the majority says those healthy inmates might need medical attention in the future. In other words the complaint sought improvement of conditions, not people.
In addition, the decision rejects the Supreme Court ruling on class actions. Class actions are a procedural device to place all people who comply with Rule 23. The court determines the entire class is eligible for remedy, if they prevail, in a “single stroke.” The majority classifies its decision as a “single stroke:” to clean up the prisons. Cert. will be granted (this case was reheard).
This decision ranks with innumerable others ready not only for reversal but for ending the practice of ordering states to do the will of a few federal judges who ignore any restrictions on federal courts. The 9th Circuit constitutionalizes everything it can in compelling states to conform it to its social policy. And its solicitude for murderers, rapists, robbers, and sex offenders Is legendary. Shortly after the Parsons case was decided, the 9th Circuit wrote Harrington . v. Scribner. In a series of violent acts committed by black inmates in prison the warden ordered a lockdown. The plaintiff, a prisoner, sued the state alleging he was not a part of the violence but affected by the lockdown and alleges claims under the 8th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
In a 2–1 opinion, written by the usual suspects they undertook an academic analysing of the Eighth Amendment and Equal Rights. According to the majority, the trial judge failed to properly distinguish the different requirements in pleading and proof. The academic forest of linguistics to jurors could not be understood and the panel reversed the verdict for the defendant warden. The explanation so absurd that no one could understand, and even if they did the prisoner’s case was a worthless waste of time.