The United States Supreme Court opted not to hear cases related to the payment of filing fees by indigent prisoners and the legality of firearm possession by felons, setting the stage for continued debate over these contentious issues. The announcement was made as part of a list of orders from the justices’ recent private conference.
Among the cases declined was Johnson v. High Desert State Prison, which revolved around whether indigent prisoners filing joint lawsuits could share the financial burden of filing fees, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). This case spotlighted a lawsuit from three inmates subjected to severe conditions at a California prison. They contended that the PLRA should allow them to pay the $350 filing fee in installments and share it among themselves, rather than each paying the fee individually. However, lower courts mandated that each prisoner must shoulder the full fee, a stance the Supreme Court upheld by refusing to review the appeal.
This decision came despite dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who criticized the 9th Circuit’s ruling as “likely incorrect” and noted the significance of the issue. Sotomayor emphasized that the inability to share fees imposes undue financial burdens on prisoners with limited means, pointing out a division among the appellate courts on this recurring and significant issue.
The Supreme Court also declined to address challenges to legislation prohibiting felons from gun ownership, such as the case of Vincent v. Bondi, which involved a woman with a previous conviction for check fraud. Attempts to challenge this law were previously reviewed, highlighting ongoing debates around the interpretation of the Second Amendment and rehabilitation rights.
Additional cases not granted review included a baseball antitrust exemption challenge, a First Amendment case concerning Alabama’s ban on begging, and a dispute over Michigan’s voter roll maintenance.
The justices are scheduled to hold another private conference soon, with further orders anticipated in the aftermath of their deliberations. For more detailed coverage of these cases and others, visit SCOTUSBlog.