Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Then I read the transcripts for Wilkinson v Austin, the Ohio Supermax case.
While it could go either way, it looked tough for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have a facial challenge to an arbitrary process, which they proved at trial. But the state switched to a different arbitrary process, and there's a concern that that moots the facialness of the challenge, at least for some members of the class.
So there are several grounds on which the decision could be reversed, and I can't call how this will come out. Other aspects of the case were settled for 1.9 million in legal fees, and the new procedures are better than the old ones, but if the case is reversed, that will be a sign for business as usual in the privatized torture chamber industry.
While it could go either way, it looked tough for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have a facial challenge to an arbitrary process, which they proved at trial. But the state switched to a different arbitrary process, and there's a concern that that moots the facialness of the challenge, at least for some members of the class.
So there are several grounds on which the decision could be reversed, and I can't call how this will come out. Other aspects of the case were settled for 1.9 million in legal fees, and the new procedures are better than the old ones, but if the case is reversed, that will be a sign for business as usual in the privatized torture chamber industry.
Comments:
Post a Comment
