Case: Williams v. Brann

On March 19, 2020, individuals in pretrial detention or held on a parole violation at Rikers Island and other New York County jails filed this habeas lawsuit in New York State trial court (which is called the New York Supreme Court). Represented by the Legal Aid Society of New York, petitioners, who were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, sought immediate release on the grounds that continuation of their incarceration on bail and parole holds constituted "deliberate indifference to the risk of serious medical harm" in violation of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the New York constitution. As of March 19, COVID-19 had already reached Rikers Island where at least one incarcerated person had tested positive for the virus.

The petition was denied March 20, 2020 by Judge Joel M. Cohen, who held that continuing to hold the inmates did not constitute deliberate indifference to the risk of serious medical harm under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On April 1, 2020, petitioners filed a motion for leave to reargue or renew their petition for habeas corpus. Petitioners argued that the deterioration of the situation in New York City jails and the emerging legal precedent that it was a violation of constitutional due process to continue to hold medically vulnerable pre-trial detainees warranted the immediate release of 79 individuals held on pre-trial bail decisions or parole holds.

On April 13, 2020, Judge Steven M. Statsinger issued his decision. Judge Statsinger granted the motion for leave to renew, but held that on renewal "the court adheres to its original ruling that the relief requested - the mass release of a large number of inmates without an individualized determination of each inmate's risk of non-appearance - is inappropriate." The court cited a "unique risk of non-appearance" because of a lack of a mechanism for warning each releasee of the consequences of failing to return as a reason in denying the release of the inmates. The court also held that continuing to hold detainees at Rikers Island did not constitute deliberate indifference to the inmates' medical needs. The court recognized that reducing prison populations furthered the public health, but argued that releasing detainees for that reason was beyond the scope of the court's authority.

Petitioners appealed this case on March 30. Petitioners' argument on appeal claimed that the lower court erred in three ways. First, it erred in claiming that respondents' actions to mitigate the spread of COVID in jails were sufficient to avoid being "deliberately indifferent." Second, they argued that the court incorrectly determined that the state's interest in detaining pretrial inmates outweighed the prisoner's interest in surviving the pandemic. Finally, the lower court claimed that habeas corpus should not be granted "holistically" (meaning granting habeas to scores of people at a time), but rather assessed on an individual level. Yet the lower court then declined to engage in these individualized assessments.

Several respondents filed briefs, including the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, the Attorney General, the New York County District Attorney, and the Department of Corrections. They all argued more or less the same points as the lower court had.

On July 23, the Appellate Division issued its ruling. They affirmed the lower court's decision refusing to grant habeas corpus. They argued that the respondents were taking the outbreak seriously, demonstrated by the fact that they had already voluntarily let many prisoners out. Therefore they were not deliberately indifferent to the inmates' risk of contracting COVID. They were also skeptical of the use of a "mass" writ for habeas corpus, preferring individualized assessment as well. However, the court said that the petitioners had not supplied the information necessary to make those determinations, even on a case-by-case basis.

The case is ongoing as of July 27, 2020.