This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1972, two inmates filed class actions lawsuits against Ds. The complaint asserted that Ds had violated Ps’ rights to their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by adopting and enforcing unconstitutional disciplinary rules, denying prisoners procedural due process, unlawfully depriving prisoners of good time credits, and subjecting prisoners who were placed in isolation to inadequate diets and degrading living conditions. Before the suit proceeded very far, the State and Ds’ predecessors entered into a consent decree with Ps. The district court determined that at the time the decree was agreed upon it was inappropriate to make findings of fact or conclusions of law under the circumstances. In 1996, Ds filed a motion to terminate the consent decree pursuant to PLRA. Ps responded that PLRA was unconstitutional. The district court granted Ds’ motion to terminate the consent decree because Ps could not provide the findings required for continuation of the decree under the PLRA. The court then stayed that order pending determination on whether the PLRA was unconstitutional. The district court then declared 18 U.S.C.A. 3626(b)(2) unconstitutional on March 21, 1997. The prior order was vacated but the vacation order was stayed pending resolution of the motion to modify the consent decree.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.