Supreme Court to weigh rights of federal prison inmates to sue over lack of medical treatment

NBC News Clone summarizes the latest on: Supreme Court Rights Federal Prison Inmates Sue Medical Care Bivens Rcna350739 - Politics and Government | NBC News Clone. This article is rewritten and presented in a simplified tone for a better reader experience.

The justices have regularly made it harder for people to sue federal officials for alleged constitutional violations.
Alabama Asks Supreme Court To Pause Lower Court Ruling On Redistricting Map
The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a prison inmate can sue over a lack of medical assistance after a riot.Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images file

WASHINGTON — Taking up a case that could further erode the rights of people to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a prison inmate could sue a nurse for failing to provide medical assistance after a riot.

The case concerns a lawsuit brought by Kekai Watanabe, who alleges he was denied medical treatment following a riot at a federal prison in Honolulu in July 2021.

The justices will consider the scope of a 1980 Supreme Court ruling called Carlson v. Green that said federal prison inmates could sue officials for deliberate indifference to their medical needs under the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

Watanabe said he asked Francis Nielsen, a nurse at the facility, to be taken to the hospital after complaining about pain. He says he was denied treatment other than over-the-counter pain medication.

Watanabe was later diagnosed with a fractured coccyx and was found to have bone chips embedded in surrounding soft tissue. He was ultimately referred to a specialist.

He then sued, claiming that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated.

A federal court rejected Watanabe’s lawsuit, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in a September 2024 ruling.

At the center of the case is whether the Supreme Court believes the 1980 precedent can be broadly applied to similar incidents.

That ruling was a rare occasion in which the court expanded on a decision from nine years earlier called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which first found that people could sue federal officials for constitutional violations.

But since then the Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow what have been dubbed “Bivens claims.”

In one recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued.

In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed.

Last year the court ruled against a prison inmate seeking to sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in another case involving a Bivens claim.

Although legislation has been proposed in Congress, lawmakers have never enacted a law that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations. A long-standing federal law allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials.

×
AdBlock Detected!
Please disable it to support our content.

Related Articles

Donald Trump Presidency Updates - Politics and Government | NBC News Clone | Inflation Rates 2025 Analysis - Business and Economy | NBC News Clone | Latest Vaccine Developments - Health and Medicine | NBC News Clone | Ukraine Russia Conflict Updates - World News | NBC News Clone | Openai Chatgpt News - Technology and Innovation | NBC News Clone | 2024 Paris Games Highlights - Sports and Recreation | NBC News Clone | Extreme Weather Events - Weather and Climate | NBC News Clone | Hollywood Updates - Entertainment and Celebrity | NBC News Clone | Government Transparency - Investigations and Analysis | NBC News Clone | Community Stories - Local News and Communities | NBC News Clone