By Natalie Kemper
The problem of dangerously hot prison conditions is not new. However, this issue has become increasingly more prevalent due to climate change, a rise in heat-related deaths, and a lack of effective policy. In Florida, inmates in around three-quarters of prisons are subjected to a lack of air conditioning.[1] An extensive study on heat-related mortality in U.S. state and private prisons from 2001-2019 found that a ten degree increase in temperature was associated with a little over a five percent increase in total mortality.[2] In addition to higher mortality rates, excessive heat and lack of air conditioning in prisons has other serious consequences, including a heightened risk of suicide, increased violence within prisons, and high staff turnover rates.[3] Further, a lack of air conditioning and improper ventilation can increase the spread of illnesses,[4] which is especially concerning with the inherently confined nature of prisons.
To successfully challenge the conditions of confinement, an inmate bringing a civil rights claim under Section 1983 must show that a prison official acted with “deliberate indifference.”[5] This standard requires evidence of harm due to excessive heat, in which the prison official knew about a significant risk to the inmate’s health or safety (the objective prong) and proof of recklessness in disregarding the known risk (the subjective prong).[6] For the objective prong, the prisoner must show that the risk to their health from excessive heat is substantial and further, that the risk was caused by the heat.[7] Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields officials from liability unless they violate a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.[8] Due to this, a prison official cannot be held liable if the inmate is unable to prove they were personally aware of the risk. As it is well known that excessive heat can pose a substantial health risk, and as the prison officials themselves are also subjected to the high temperatures, this should be relatively easy to show. The difficulty arises, however, when the official is able to show they responded reasonably, even if the harm was not averted.[9] Not only is it extremely challenging to satisfy both the objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference, but defendants are then able to overcome it relatively easily by introducing evidence that they took reasonable steps to mitigate the heat-related risks, like providing water or not requiring prisoners to wear many clothes.
Even further, if a court does hold that there was an Eighth Amendment violation, Section 1983 remedies are limited and only require a minimal amount of relief,[10] thus leading to modest heat mitigation efforts, and rarely to long-term solutions. In this context, that means that prisons found liable will not necessarily be required to provide air conditioning but may instead simply have to increase access to water, cold showers, fans and ice.
The Eleventh Circuit has yet to hold excessive heat as an Eighth Amendment violation, despite it encompassing many of the country’s hottest states.[11] In Chandler v. Crosby, the Eleventh Circuit held that high cell temperatures did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.[12] The court noted the Florida prison’s ventilation system, running water, limited sunlight exposure, and opportunities for temporary relief in air-conditioned areas alleviated concern for the heat.[13] Additionally, the court highlighted the fact that every cell had running water and was not exposed to direct sunlight and further, that inmates had some opportunities to gain relief in air-conditioned areas and were not required to wear many clothes.[14]
The lack of adequate climate control in prisons poses a serious human rights issue, demanding policy intervention beyond the limitations of civil rights litigation. Section 1983 litigation is largely an ineffective way to hold prison officials with the liability necessary to enact change and provide relief. As excessive prison temperatures have far-reaching and long-lasting implications, the issue needs to be addressed on a large scale level, with policy geared towards acknowledging the human rights implications of forcing inmates to live in temperatures sometimes exceeding a hundred degrees.[15]
[1] Siena Duncan, ‘Cooking someone to death’: Southern states resist calls to add air condition to prisons, Politico (June 5, 2024), https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/prison-heat-air-conditioning-00160676#:~:text=Florida’s%20prisons%20face%20problems%20that,facilities%20and%20renovate%20old%20ones.
[2] Skarha J, et al., Heat-related mortality in U.S. state and private prisons: A case-crossover analysis, PLoS ONE 18(3) (2023), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281389.
[3] Siena Duncan, ‘Cooking someone to death’: Southern states resist calls to add air condition to prisons.
[4] CDC, Heat-Related-Deaths-United States, 2004-2018, Morbidity And Mortality Weekly Report (June 19, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924a1.htm#:~:text=During%202004–2018%2C%20an%20average,alcohol%20poisoning%2C%20and%20drug%20overdoses.
[5] Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
[6] Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
[7] Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F. 3d 1278, 1297 (11th Cir. 2004).
[8] Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
[9] Id. at 844.
[10] 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (Prison Litigation Reform Act).
[11] Hottest States 2024, World Population Review (last accessed Nov. 1, 2024), https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/hottest-states.
[12] Chandler, 379 F. 3d at 1298.
[13] Id. at 1298.
[14] Id.
[15] Jamiles Lartey, ‘Deliberate Indifference’: Court Rulings Challenge Extreme Heat Conditions in Prisons, The Marshall Project(Oct. 10, 2024), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/08/10/texas-heat-louisiana-prison#:~:text=For%20the%20men%20picking%20crops,improve%20safety%20for%20incarcerated%20laborers.
