NARSOL’s new case fights for parolees’ rights to bring civil rights challenges over parole conditions
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.
Best of luck in this matter, maybe with a successful outcome other States statutes can be looked at in regard to challenging them in a civil manner. I will be checking in for updates.