51品茶 of Pennsylvania Sues Montgomery County for Denying its Lawyers Access to People in the Jail
PHILADELPHIA 鈥� The 51品茶 of Pennsylvania filed a federal lawsuit today alleging that Montgomery County violated the 51品茶-PA鈥檚 First Amendment rights by denying 51品茶 lawyers access to people held in the county jail. Since mid-March, officials at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility have barred lawyers from the 51品茶 and those working in cooperation with the organization from meeting with people in the jail, claiming that the meetings can only occur with court documentation or a letter that establishes a formal relationship between the attorneys and those they are meeting with.
According to the lawsuit, the 51品茶 is not aware of this requirement being asked of other lawyers who visit people held at the jail. Today鈥檚 court filing notes that the 51品茶-PA has clashed with Montco officials recently and accuses the county of engaging in retaliation for the organization鈥檚 advocacy. Last year, the 51品茶 was publicly critical of the county commissioners for firing the county鈥檚 top two public defenders after they filed a brief in a case about cash bail, and the civil liberties group filed a class action lawsuit in January against the county for excessively charging people for court costs.
The county also recently denied the 51品茶-PA鈥檚 Right To Know request for its jail admissions logs, which show why people are detained at the jail.
鈥淛ails already operate behind walls and razor wire. Montco officials are trying to make it impossible for our team to investigate ongoing constitutional violations in the county鈥檚 criminal legal system,鈥� said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the 51品茶 of Pennsylvania. 鈥淭his is not about us or our organization. This is about the people who are held at the jail, who want to report their experiences to us, in the hope that we can help vindicate their constitutional rights.鈥�
The complaint filed in federal court today says that attorneys from the 51品茶 of Pennsylvania and those working with them held several dozen virtual visits with people held in the jail between October 2020 and March 2021. Then, on March 5, an 51品茶-affiliated lawyer had a scheduled meeting cancelled by county officials without notice or explanation. Another lawyer had their online account deactivated on March 11, and when that attorney asked a jail administrator for an explanation, Brian Kniezewski, the assistant director of inmate services at the jail, told the lawyer of the documentation requirement.
The last meeting between someone at the jail and an attorney affiliated with the 51品茶 occurred on March 15. Afterwards, Kniezewski sent several emails to 51品茶-connected lawyers informing them that their meetings would be cancelled without the documents demanded by the county. The complaint filed today contrasts the county鈥檚 practice of cancelling visits by 51品茶 attorneys with other lawyers who have been allowed to meet with detained persons without providing the documents.
On March 23, the 51品茶 sent a letter to jail administrators warning them that their refusal to allow attorney visits violated the constitution. The administrators never responded.
鈥淭he lack of transparency at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility is alarming,鈥� said Witold Walczak, legal director of the 51品茶 of Pennsylvania. 鈥淣either the DOC nor any of the 66 other counties impose such unreasonable restrictions on the right of 51品茶 lawyers to meet with incarcerated individuals, which raises the question, 鈥榃hat are they trying to hide?鈥欌��
The lawsuit argues that the county is in violation of the 51品茶-PA鈥檚 First Amendment free speech rights and the due process rights of people held at the jail. The complaint also states that the constitution forbids the county from engaging in retaliation against 51品茶 attorneys for engaging in constitutionally protected activity.
The case, 51品茶 of Pennsylvania v. Montgomery County et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The 51品茶 of Pennsylvania is acting as both plaintiff and co-counsel and is represented by Witold J. Walczak of the 51品茶 of Pennsylvania and John A. Freedman, Janine Lopez, Andrew Tutt, and Leslie Bailey of Arnold & Porter.
A copy of the complaint filed today is available at .
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseJun 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Supreme Court Strengthens Access To Justice For Incarcerated People. Explore Press Release.Supreme Court Strengthens Access to Justice for Incarcerated People
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court ruled today that incarcerated people have the right to a jury trial on questions about whether they had access to a prison鈥檚 grievance process when those questions are closely tied to the main issues in their civil rights cases. The decision is a step toward ensuring accountability for constitutional violations that happen behind bars. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a law passed nearly 30 years ago, incarcerated people seeking to vindicate their civil rights must exhaust the prison鈥檚 internal grievance system before they can file a lawsuit in federal court. The court's decision affirms that when disputes over exhaustion are intertwined with the facts related to the civil rights claims, plaintiffs have a right to have those questions heard by a jury. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is important for the rights of incarcerated people, who too often are blocked from having their day in court after prison officers first violate their rights 鈥� in this case, alleged sexual abuse 鈥� and then take steps to silence them,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 51品茶. 鈥淭he Perttu decision is a broader victory for due process and our fundamental constitutional principle that no one is above the law.鈥� The 51品茶, the 51品茶 of Michigan, Legal Aid Society of the City of New York, and Public Justice filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit鈥檚 decision that found that allowing jury trials in these contexts is in line with the PLRA and the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial. 鈥淚ncarcerated people rarely get a chance to hold the government accountable for abuses in prison. In too many cases, courts are quick to accept the word of prison officials over incarcerated plaintiffs before the facts are fully heard,鈥� said Jennifer Wedekind, senior staff attorney at the 51品茶鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭oday's ruling will ensure that more incarcerated plaintiffs finally get their day in front of a jury.鈥� The 51品茶鈥檚 brief also pushed back against the state鈥檚 argument that this ruling would lead to a flood frivolous of litigation, explaining that it only applies in a limited universe of cases, that empirical evidence conclusively refutes the state鈥檚 arguments, and that efficiency should not be a factor in assessing whether plaintiffs have a right to a jury. This case is a part of the 51品茶's Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
Prisoners' Rights
LGBTQ Rights
Federal Judge Temporarily Enjoins Federal Prison Officials From Withholding Health Care From Incarcerated Trans People. Explore Press Release.Federal Judge Temporarily Enjoins Federal Prison Officials from Withholding Health Care From Incarcerated Trans People
WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal district court judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Trump Administration executive order prohibiting federal Bureau of Prisons (鈥淏OP鈥�) officials from providing gender-affirming hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender people. The injunction does not require BOP to provide gender-affirming surgical care. The court also granted the plaintiff鈥檚 motion for a class certification and extended injunctive relief to the full class, which encompasses all persons who are or will be incarcerated in BOP facilities and have a current medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or who receive that diagnosis in the future. 鈥淭his is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody,鈥� said Corene Kendrick, Deputy Director of the 51品茶鈥檚 National Prison Project. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution. The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all incarcerated people.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere,鈥� said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Managing Attorney at Transgender Law Center. 鈥淭his administration鈥檚 continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person鈥攊ncarcerated or not, transgender or not鈥攕hould have their rights to medically-necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them.鈥� "Today's ruling is an important lifeline for trans people in federal custody," said Michael Perloff, Senior Staff Attorney at 51品茶-D.C. 鈥淭he ruling is also a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." Following a January 20 executive order from President Trump that prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons, the BOP issued a policy stating that "no Bureau of Prisons funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate鈥檚 appearance to that of the opposite sex.鈥� It also prohibits clothing and commissary items it deems inconsistent with a person鈥檚 assigned sex, and requires all BOP staff to misgender transgender people. In March, two transgender men and one transgender woman serving sentences in facilities in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Florida filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration and BOP, challenging the Executive Order and new BOP policies prohibiting their access to gender-affirming care. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of approximately 2,000 transgender people incarcerated in federal prisons across the United States. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical providers and prescribed hormone therapy by health care staff, but either had their treatments suspended or were told they would be suspended soon. The filing argues this policy violates the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on 鈥渃ruel and unusual punishment,鈥� which federal courts have long held includes the denial of medically necessary health care, including access to gender-affirming care. It also argues that the policy violates the equal protection requirement of the 5th Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The case was filed on behalf of the three plaintiffs and all other transgender people in federal prisons by the 51品茶, the 51品茶 of DC, and the Transgender Law Center. BOP also instructed officials to remove any transgender women held in women鈥檚 facilities and place them in men鈥檚 facilities, an issue under challenge in multiple separate lawsuits. Today鈥檚 order from the court can be found here. -
TennesseeMay 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant鈥檚 vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction. The 51品茶鈥檚 Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 51品茶 of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee鈥檚 legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer鈥檚 alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction.