Court revives male inmate’s legal challenge to gender rules
A federal appeals court revived a legal challenge Friday to California prison security rules that allow some female inmates — but no males — to buy or possess a wide range of items including tweezers, bath towels, jeans and sugary foods like honey or jam.
The rules, adopted in 2008, set different standards for male and female prisoners on the grounds that men are more likely to commit acts of violence or try to escape. Thus male inmates with the lowest security classification are barred from buying products from prison vendors, like metallic items that could be converted into weapons, or towels or scarves that could be used for strangulation, that females with highrisk classifications are allowed to purchase.
In a 2016 lawsuit by a male inmate at San Quentin, a federal magistrate upheld the rules on the grounds that they were “reasonably related” to officials’ legitimate concerns. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Friday that such suits must be judged by the same standards that apply to other claims
of sex discrimination: that officials must show the differing treatment was necessary to serve “important governmental objectives.”
That constitutional standard governs “prison regulations such as this one, which facially discriminate on the basis of gender,” Judge Richard Tallman said in the 30 ruling by a panel with a conservative majority. Two other federal appeals courts have applied the same standard to sexdiscrimination suits in prison, but the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue.
Tallman said prison officials might be able to justify their policy with evidence that male prisoners with lowrisk security classifications, or those housed in lowersecurity prisons, are more likely to commit acts of violence than highsecurity female inmates. But he said the rules must be reviewed under the new standard by U.S. Magistrate Nandor Vadas, who had upheld them under lessdemanding criteria.
The ruling shows that “whenever the state classifies its citizens based on their gender, that classification must be based on reasoned analysis rather than the mechanical application of sex stereotypes,” said Samir DegerSen, a lawyer for the inmate.
He said the case “could have farreaching consequences for both male and female prisoners across the Ninth Circuit who are subject to programs or policies that discriminate against them because of their gender.”
Dana Simas, spokeswoman for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said the department was reviewing the ruling.
California has about 96,000 prisoners, 3,800 of them women.
The department’s rules prohibit male inmates, regardless of security classification, from possessing metallic items such as tweezers, hair dryers, clippers, hangers, spray cans and alarm clocks. They are also barred from owning clothing items, like scarves and robes, that could be used to choke someone.
Tshirts and jeans are also offlimits because they could allow an escaped inmate to blend in with the general population, according to the department. Necklaces, bracelets and other jewelry could lead to fights among male inmates. And sugary foods such as honey, jam and fruit, as well as ketchup, could become ingredients of an illicit alcoholic beverage called Pruno.
The case “could have farreaching consequences for both male and female prisoners across the Ninth Circuit ... ”
Samir DegerSen, a lawyer for the inmate