543 U.S. 499 (2005)
The California Department of Corrections houses all new male inmates and inmates transferred from other facilities in reception centers for up to 60 days.1 During this period, double-cell assignments are based predominantly on race.2 The CDC has admitted that the chances of an inmate being assigned a cellmate of another race are pretty close to zero percent.3 The CDC further subdivides prisoners within each racial group, separating Japanese-Americans from Chinese-Americans and Northern California Hispanics from Southern California Hispanics.4 After the initial period, the rest of the prison facilities are fully integrated, and prisoners may choose their own cellmates.5
Garrison Johnson, an African-American inmate in CDC custody since 1987, was double-celled with another African-American inmate upon his arrival at Folsom prison in 1987 and each time he was transferred to a new facility.6 Johnson filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 24, 1995, alleging that the CDC's reception-center housing policy violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.7 After the complaint was dismissed and reinstated on appeal, Johnson filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on July 5, 2000, seeking damages against former directors Rowland and Gomez and injunctive relief against Director Cambra.8
Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds.9 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying the deferential Turner standard.10 The Court of Appeals denied Johnson's petition for rehearing en banc. We granted certiorari to decide which standard of review applies. 540 U. S. 1217 (2004).
Whether the deferential standard articulated in Turner v. Safley applies to an equal protection challenge to the California Department of Corrections policy of assigning inmates to double cells on the basis of race?11
The Turner v. Safley standard validates a prison regulation if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, but this standard applies to regulations that burden prisoners' constitutional rights in neutral ways, and the Turner factors are not suited to express racial classifications.12
No. The CDC's policy is an express racial classification that divides inmates into racial groups and assigns them to cells on that basis.13 The chances of an inmate being assigned a cellmate of another race are pretty close to zero percent. The policy further subdivides within racial groups by separating Japanese-Americans from Chinese-Americans and Northern California Hispanics from Southern California Hispanics. Garrison Johnson, an African-American inmate in custody since 1987, was double-celled exclusively with other African-American inmates upon each arrival and transfer. The Turner standard is inappropriate because the policy is not neutral.14 The right to be free from racial discrimination is not one that must necessarily be compromised for proper prison administration.15
The facts show that the policy applies only to double cells during the reception period while all other prison areas remain integrated and inmates later choose their own cellmates.16
The deferential Turner standard does not apply to the CDC's express racial classification policy.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Scalia (as To Parts I And Ii-a)
Justice Thomas dissents on the ground that Turner supplies the proper standard because the Constitution demands less within prison walls. Prison administrators require wide latitude to manage security risks arising from race-based gangs.18 He emphasizes that the policy is limited to double cells in reception centers for up to sixty days.19
Race is only the predominant factor among many others including gang affiliation and geography.20 The Turner factors are satisfied because the policy is reasonably related to the legitimate interest in preventing racial violence.21 Thomas concludes that the Court of Appeals should be reversed and the policy upheld under Turner.22
Whether strict scrutiny applies to the CDC's express racial classification in its reception-center housing assignments?23
All racial classifications imposed by government, including those in the prison context, must be analyzed under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the classifications are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests.24
Yes. The CDC's policy constitutes an express racial classification because it assigns double cells predominantly on the basis of race, producing a near-zero chance of interracial cell assignments and further subdividing groups by national origin. The policy is applied to Johnson each time he enters a new facility, and the record shows it is unwritten and unique among most jurisdictions.25 Strict scrutiny is required even in prisons because the right against racial discrimination is not inconsistent with proper incarceration and because deference under Turner would make rank discrimination too easy to defend.26
The facts establish that the classification is not neutral, that other areas of the prisons are integrated, and that the CDC has not shown individualized consideration is impossible.
Strict scrutiny applies to the CDC's express racial classification policy.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Souter And Breyer
Justice Ginsburg concurs that strict scrutiny applies but stresses that the standard is not fatal in fact and that the CDC should have the opportunity on remand to demonstrate narrow tailoring. She notes that experience in other States and federal prisons strongly suggests the race-based assignment is not necessary to safe management of a penal institution.28 Ginsburg joins the opinion while reserving her view that the same standard of review ought not control every official race classification.29
Justice Stevens dissents from the decision to remand, arguing that the policy is unconstitutional on the existing record even under Turner because the CDC relies on overbroad stereotypes, offers no empirical evidence of interracial cellmate violence, and has never tried race-neutral alternatives such as timely presentence reports.30 The CDC's segregation policy is based on a conclusive presumption that housing inmates of different races together creates an unacceptable risk of racial violence. Under the policy's logic, an inmate's race is a proxy for gang membership, and gang membership is a proxy for violence.
The CDC has offered scant empirical evidence or expert opinion to justify this use of race under even a minimal level of constitutional scrutiny.31 Stevens concludes that the policy violates equal protection because it applies a conclusive presumption of danger to all new and transferred inmates without individualized assessment.32