Ruling On Prisons Raises Doubts On Privatization

In a ruling that could hamper efforts to privatize government jobs, the Supreme Court on Monday said guards at privately run prisons do not enjoy the same legal protection as those at state-run facilities.

The court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that guards at a private prison in Tennessee never are entitled to the immunity against lawsuits state prison guards sometimes enjoy.

The decision, although focusing only on prison guards, could affect private employees engaged in varied tasks - from picking up garbage to providing medical services - in a period when many state and local governments are downsizing and contracting out work.

Idaho is gearing up for a giant privatized prison project, a 1,250-bed private prison with expansion space to bring it up to 3,000 beds. State corrections officials were studying the high court’s decision Monday, but a consultant said Idaho’s project won’t be threatened.

“Our examination of history and purpose … reveals nothing special enough about the job or about its organizational structure that would warrant providing these prison guards with a governmental immunity,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court.

Dissenting justices said private prison guards’ jobs are the same as those of publicly employed guards, and that the ruling will merely make prison privatization more expensive.

Idaho has issued a request for proposals for its private prison project and has received strong interest from potential bidders. About 100 people, representing more than 20 firms, attended a prebid conference last week. Bids are due Aug. 4.

Richard Crane, a Nashville consultant who worked with the state to develop the request, said it already addresses liability issues.

“The state’s exposure is no greater than prior to the Supreme Court’s decision,” Crane said.

“The contractor’s exposure to liability is probably no greater … either. Perhaps it might be slightly higher.”

Frank Lockwood, spokesman for Gov. Phil Batt, said the state will review the decision.

“The big question is what impact will this have on the cost of private prisons in the future,” he said.

But cost isn’t the only advantage Idaho has cited in looking to privatization, he noted.

The state expects a private prison to be built within about 18 months, while a state prison of the same size could take up to three years to complete. With Idaho’s prisons overflowing, that’s a pressing concern.

A major private prison firm said the decision won’t mean big changes.

“It will not change how we treat our prisoners or how we defend lawsuits,” said Peggy Wilson Lawrence of Corrections Corp. of America, which runs the private prison in Tennessee.

“We’re used to being held to a different and somewhat higher standard.”

Private prisons have become a booming business in some states. About one-third of the states have such enterprises, often under contracts to exercise all the police powers and traditional public functions exclusively reserved to a state government.

Tennessee officials signed an agreement to have the Nashville-based Corrections Corp. of America run a prison in Clifton, Tenn.

Ronnie Lee McKnight, an inmate at the prison, sued guards Daryll Richardson and John Walker in 1994. McKnight, who weighs more than 300 pounds, alleged that the guards violated his rights by subjecting him to bodily restraints that were excessively tight while he was taken to Clifton from Nashville.

McKnight, a convicted rapist serving a 24-year sentence, contended in his lawsuit that the restraints required hospital treatment for extreme pain and swelling. The lawsuit also said the two guards taunted McKnight when he complained about the restraints.

Richardson and Walker sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. But a federal trial judge and later the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that guards working for a private, for-profit corporation are not entitled to the “qualified immunity” that shields state employees who are sued over actions taken in the good-faith belief that no one’s rights are being violated.

Breyer was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Writing for the four, Scalia said, “Today’s decision says that two sets of prison guards who are indistinguishable in the ultimate source of their authority over prisoners, and indistinguishable in the duties that they owe towards prisoners, are to be treated quite differently in the matter of their financial liability.”

He added: “The only sure effect of today’s decision - and the only purpose so far as I can tell - is that it will artificially raise the cost of privatizing prisons.”

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = From staff and wire reports Staff writer Betsy Z. Russell contributed to this report.