2021 Update
Plaintiffs are men who have been civilly committed for inpatient treatment for an alcohol or substance use disorder under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123, Section 35 (“Section 35”). Although they have not been convicted or even charged with any crime, they are incarcerated in one of two separate correctional facilities: (1) the Massachusetts Alcohol and Treatment Center or MASAC operated by the Department of Correction, and (2) the Stony Brook Stabilization Center operated by the Sheriff of Hampden County. Every year, Massachusetts incarcerates about 2,000 men under Section 35 either at MASAC or the Hampden County facility.
The legal claims are:
(1) Incarcerating civilly committed men but not women constitutes gender discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act. Under Section 35, men who need inpatient treatment for alcohol or substance use disorders go to prison, while women receive treatment community facilities.
(2) Civil commitment to a correctional institution for treatment of a medical condition constitutes unlawful disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Article 114 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. By subjecting men to stigma and punishment instead of treatment, Section 35 perpetuates unwarranted negative stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that they are second-class citizens unworthy of bona-fide treatment.
(3) Civil commitment to a prison violates the substantive due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Articles 1, 10, and 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ incarceration violates the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to above, and a permanent injunction prohibiting civil commitments under Section 35 to a correctional facility. The Complaint names as Defendants the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, the Sheriff of Hampden County, the Commissioner of Public Health, the Department of Public Health, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
Since we filed the suit, the Defendants have implemented numerous changes at both MASAC and Hampden County, including removing all sentenced prisoners from the facility, turning all day-to-day operation over to the clinical provider, and expanding treatment. We have filed two amended complaints describing these changes, and the court has certified the case as a class action.
2022 Update
In March of 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings seeking a ruling that Section 35 is not unlawful on its face because a correctional facility, such as MASAC, could at least theoretically be operated as a treatment facility. Plaintiffs opposed this motion on grounds that confinement in a correctional facility for treatment of a disease is inherently stigmatizing and discriminatory. On December 29, 2021, the court issued a rather odd decision holding that Section 35 is not facially unconstitutional, but only because it could be implemented without sending anyone to a correctional facility if DPH created enough treatment beds in the community. Since our position is that only the portion of the statute that allows for incarceration is unconstitutional, we agree with that reasoning. Defendants, however, asked the Court to report the case to the Supreme Judicial Court, but that motion was denied. We are now proceeding with discovery and expect a trial in 2023.
Click here to see the original grant, including the six-month and year-end reports.