October, 13 2009, 02:40pm EDT

CCR Challenges Legality of Prison Telephone Rates Before NY Court of Appeals
Families Who Paid Exorbitant Rates for More than 10 Years Continue to Struggle Despite End of Kickback Contract
WASHINGTON
Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) challenged the
legality of prison phone rates in oral arguments before the Court of
Appeals of the State of New York, the highest court in the state. The
case, Walton v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS),
seeks compensation for years of an unlawful tax levied on families of
prisoners who wanted to remain in contact with their loved ones,
keeping them connected to their communities.
Said plaintiff Ivey Walton, "I live on a fixed
income, and that prison phone contract forced me to make some hard
decisions-most of the time I couldn't afford to put food on the table
and talk to my son in the same month. I want everyone hurt by those
outrageous phone bills for 10 years to finally get justice."
"These families seek to expose the kickback for what it was - an
illegal, burdensome tax that violated their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech and association, equal protection and due process,"
said CCR Attorney Rachel Meeropol.
"DOCS made money off the backs of mothers and fathers, kids and other
loved ones of New York State prisoners for years. They must be held
accountable, and the court can make sure it never happens again."
Attorneys argue the State's profits from prison telephone calls was an
unlegislated and illegal tax that came out of the pockets of the
disproportionately poor families and friends of people in prison. Under
the monopoly contract, families paid $3.00 to receive a call and 16
cents per minute, with multiple surcharges common. Some family members
paid bills totaling more than $15,000 over the course of the contract.
Many still feel the effects, according to recent contacts.
PROFILE
Ronna Smith, age 56, spent two years trying to
maintain supportive contact with her daughter who was in prison, at
first a five-and-a half-hour drive away and later a two-hour drive from
Ms. Smith's home, making frequent visits difficult. She spoke recently
of the toll:
I am still trying to get out of debt. It's a horrible hardship. I have no savings and can barely keep up.
I basically let everything else go to make sure that my daughter could
call me. I am still catching up with my mortgage. My utilities are
month-to-month. Every month I am threatened with a shut off, and every
month I am able to pay them just in time. Credit cards are maxed out.I tried to limit her phone calls. It was the first time my daughter had
ever been in trouble. She was sent away for two years, and it was
devastating to the family. She needed us to keep her going, to keep
her strong. Actually, no, I didn't consider not calling because it was
to take care of her. That's how I felt.She has her own apartment now, and has two jobs. Those calls made all
the difference in the world. I don't think she would have made it if
it hadn't been for the phone calls. She was not used to that whole
system. We had to talk her through everything. It was a horrible time.It's been little over a year since she was released and I'm just now
starting to get caught up. Of course, I'm still in the bankruptcy.
There's nothing I can do about that. That's going to be another two
years until that is done.
BACKGROUND
For more than ten years, families of inmates in New York State prisons
paid phone rates more than six times as high as normal consumer rates
to speak with their loved ones, with bills in the hundreds of dollars
each month.
Starting in 1996 and continuing until Governor Spitzer ended the
practice in 2007, DOCS awarded a monopoly contract that gave the agency
57.5 percent of the phone company's profits from their prison collect
calls (first from MCI, then, later, Verizon), the only way for families
to speak with their loved ones by phone. The contract went to the
company that bid the highest kickback to the State, not the lowest cost
to consumers.
A landmark study from the California Department of Corrections and
numerous follow-up studies showed that men and women in prison who
maintain relationships with their loved ones are more likely to
complete their parole without incident and have more successful
transitions back into the community when they are released.
More than 80 percent of the State's prisoners come from poor New York
City neighborhoods, according to the Albany-based Center for Law and
Justice. With two-thirds of the prison facilities located three hours
or more from New York City, telephone calls become a critical way for
families to keep in touch.
TODAY
Despite new lower phone bills, many family members say they continue to
feel the effects of the contract, that they were unable to save, had
higher credit card debt and lower retirement savings. Many were unable
to afford health insurance as a result of the high cost of their phone
bills, and a number were forced into bankruptcy. Many had to forgo or
limit contact with loved ones, and their relationships suffered as a
result.
The financial burden was significant. Over the years that the contract
was in place, families report paying bills totaling anywhere from
hundreds of dollars to more than $15,000.
In order to make calls to loved ones, families often went without
paying other bills, without paying a mortgage, even without buying
food.
"An overwhelming number of the people we have spoken with were unable
to save money because of the cost of those phone calls," said Annette Dickerson, CCR Director of Education and Outreach. "The effects of this shameful contract reverberate among prison families to this day."
An alternative to paying the cost was staying silent. Many families
say they frequently went without communicating with parents, children,
or spouses who were incarcerated.
Juan Cartagena, General Counsel, of the Community Service
Society, and Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights are
co-counsel in the case.
For more information on Walton v. NYSDOCS, click here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular