<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>Court Vindicates Prisoners in Right to Challenge
Federal Experimental Isolation Units Restricting
Communication</b></font></h1><font size=3><b>Center for Constitutional
Rights Wins Over Government Motion to Dismiss Case Involving Segregated
Units That Target Muslims, Activists<br><br>
CONTACT: </b>press@ccrjustice.org<br><br>
<i>March 30, 2011, New York</i> – Today, prisoners in two experimental
federal prison units called <b>“Communications Management Units” (CMUs)
</b>won the right to have their day in court and challenge the violation
of their fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to due
process. The units are being used overwhelmingly to hold Muslim prisoners
and prisoners with unpopular political beliefs. The<b> Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR)</b> filed the case on their behalf exactly
one year ago on March 30, 2010. <br>
<br>
Said<b> CCR Attorney Alexis Agathocleous</b>, “Today, Judge Urbina has
agreed that our clients have raised serious constitutional questions
about the CMUs, and has vindicated their right to a day in court to
pursue their claims. Our clients were designated to the CMUs without due
process or oversight, even though they have no significant history of
disciplinary infractions. This led to pattern of retaliatory designations
to the CMUs. In a significant victory for our clients, the court will now
scrutinize the BOP’s actions.” <br>
<br>
Said <b>plaintiff Hedaya Jayyousi</b>, “I am deeply gratified that the
court will hear our claims. My husband has been held under these
conditions for years without a proper explanation. My children and I hope
that we will now be given some answers.”<br>
<br>
Transfers to the CMU are not explained, nor are prisoners told how
release into less restrictive confinement may be earned as there is no
meaningful review process. The court agreed the plaintiffs had alleged
conditions in the CMUs that were sufficiently restrictive to support
their claim that they have a “liberty interest” in having the right to
procedural due process. <br>
<br>
The court wrote, “In light of the plaintiffs factual allegations
supporting their contention that reviews provided by the defendants are
‘illusory’ and meaningless, the court determines that they have
adequately alleged there is a high risk that the procedures used by the
defendants have resulted in erroneous deprivations of their liberty
interests.” <br>
<br>
Lawyers say that because these transfers are not based on facts or
discipline for infractions, a pattern of religious and political
discrimination and retaliation for prisoners’ lawful advocacy has
emerged. <br>
<br>
The court allowed the claims of violation of due process as well as of
retaliation to go forward. The court found that plaintiff Royal Jones
made serious allegations that cannot be dismissed that he was put into
the CMU in retaliation for protected speech, and speaking out and filing
complaints about improper prison conditions. Similarly, the court found
that allegations that plaintiff Daniel McGowan was twice designated to
the CMU in retaliation for social justice advocacy and for seeking legal
information from his attorneys could not be dismissed.<br>
<br>
The court further refused to allow the BOP to evade review by
transferring the Center for Constitutional Rights’ clients from the CMU.
The court dismissed several of the claims raised by the lawsuit,
including claims of equal protection, substantive due process, and
freedom of association.<br>
<br>
CCR filed <i>Aref v. Holder </i>in the D.C. District Court on behalf of
current and former prisoners of the units in Terre Haute, IN and Marion,
IL; two other plaintiffs are the spouses of those prisoners. The CMUs
were secretly opened under the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007
respectively and were designed to monitor and control the communications
of certain prisoners and to isolate them from other prisoners and the
outside world. The five plaintiffs in Aref were designated to the two
CMUs despite having relatively or totally clean disciplinary histories,
and none of the plaintiffs have received any communications-related
disciplinary infractions in the last decade. Between 65 and 72 percent of
CMU prisoners are Muslim men.<br>
<br>
In addition to heavily restricted telephone and visitation access, CMU
prisoners are categorically denied any physical contact with family
members and are forbidden from hugging, touching or embracing their
children or spouses during visits. <br>
<br>
For information about CCR’s federal lawsuit around CMUs, visit the
<a href="http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/aref-et-al-v-holder-et-al">
<i>Aref, et al v. Holder, et al
</a></i>
<a href="http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/aref-et-al-v-holder-et-al">
case page</a> or
<a href="http://www.ccrjustice.org/cmu" eudora="autourl">
www.ccrjustice.org/cmu</a>.<br>
<br>
The law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and attorney Kenneth A.
Kreuscher are co-counsel in the case.<br><br>
<i>The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and
protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys
who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit
legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law
as a positive force for social change.<br><br>
<br><br>
</i></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>