Alabama Inmates Challenge Prison Labor Under Revised Constitution
@ReadWhatRickWrote 
In a recent hearing, lawyers for six Alabama inmates contended that the state’s prison labor policies violate the updated state Constitution, which bans involuntary servitude. The inmates, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, argue that they should not face punishment for refusing to work within the prison system, especially under conditions they deem unsafe or when dealing with illness.
Filed in May, the lawsuit seeks to allow inmates the choice to work for outside employers without the threat of losing privileges, such as phone access and commissary, or facing solitary confinement and additional unpaid labor within the prison. The suit also highlights how disciplinary actions for refusing work can hinder parole opportunities.
Senior staff attorney Jessica Vosburgh emphasized that the inmates are willing to work but oppose the punitive measures for not doing so. The lawsuit draws upon the 2022 constitutional amendment, which explicitly prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in Alabama, aligning with voters’ decision to remove racist language from the document.
The state’s motion to dismiss the case was the focal point of Monday's hearing, overseen by Circuit Judge James Anderson. This state case differs slightly from a federal case filed in December, which accuses the Alabama Department of Corrections of a labor-trafficking scheme, allegedly generating $450 million annually through forced inmate labor at fast food restaurants.
During the hearing, Vosburgh highlighted various reasons inmates might refuse work, including health risks, inadequate pay, and workplace abuse. She clarified that the inmates are not seeking monetary damages but rather an injunction against punitive measures for not working.
The state’s attorney, Assistant Solicitor General Soren Geiger, argued that the issue centers on the privileges associated with work release, which inmates voluntarily sign up for. He contended that the 2022 constitutional amendment was not intended to overhaul the prison system's incentive structure, suggesting the lawsuit seeks to exploit this modernization to undermine established rules.
Judge Anderson, after listening to 20 minutes of arguments, stated he would take time to review the case thoroughly before making a decision. Vosburgh expressed optimism about a favorable ruling following the hearing.
“We believe the judge will recognize the merit in our arguments,” Vosburgh said.
