Federal Judge Tells New York City To Brace for Takeover of Rikers After Contempt Finding
A federal judge ruled that New York City was in violation of 18 different provisions of a court-enforced plan to clean up the infamous Rikers Island jail complex.

A federal judge has ordered New York City to draft plans to hand over management of its Rikers Island jail complex to a third-party receiver after holding the city's Department of Corrections (DOC) in civil contempt for failing to meet more than a dozen requirements to improve conditions in its violence-wracked jails.
In an opinion and order issued Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Laura Taylor Swain wrote that she was "inclined to impose a receivership" after finding that violence and death inside Rikers has not improved since New York City agreed to a court-enforced reform plan in 2015.
In fact, "the use of force rate and other rates of violence, self-harm, and deaths in custody are demonstrably worse," Swain wrote.
Swain found the DOC in contempt of 18 different provisions of the consent agreement. That agreement was the result of a class action lawsuit filed in 2012 by the Legal Aid Society of New York alleging rampant brutality by guards against jail detainees. In a press release, the Legal Aid Society commended the court's "historic decision" to find the DOC in contempt.
"The culture of brutality on Rikers Island has resisted judicial and political reform efforts for years," the Legal Aid Society said. "As the court found, the City has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to provide the oversight necessary to ensure the safety of all individuals housed in local jails."
In recent years, chronic violence, corruption, and negligence inside Rikers exploded to record levels. The crisis at Rikers has been one of the most high-profile examples of bureaucratic indifference to unconstitutional suffering in prisons and jails across the country. Losing control of Rikers would be a huge embarrassment for New York City, but it would come after years of active resistance by city officials and prison guard unions to efforts to clean up the island jail.
In 2021, a New York state judge ordered a pretrial inmate released from Rikers after he presented credible video evidence that he'd been forced to perform in a "fight night" organized by gang leaders while guards watched on. A New York state senator said lawmakers touring Rikers that same year saw a man trying to kill himself. A public defender who toured the jail told The Intercept that inmates in one segregated intake unit were locked in small showers and given plastic bags to defecate into.
The court-appointed monitoring team repeatedly documented widespread security lapses, failures to help inmates who were trying to commit suicide in plain view of officers, and a small guard rotation working double and triple shifts.
While New York City opposes putting Rikers in receivership, in court filings it largely did not dispute the Legal Aid Society's arguments that it was in contempt of the consent agreement. Nor could it. Swain concluded that the plain facts showed the DOC had failed to mitigate daily violence, excessive force, poor conditions, and lax suicide protocols in its jails.
"The record in this case makes clear that those who live and work in the jails on Rikers Island are faced with grave and immediate threats of danger, as well as actual harm, on a daily basis as a direct result of Defendants' lack of diligence, and that the remedial efforts thus far undertaken by the Court, the Monitoring Team, and the parties have not been effective to alleviate this danger," Swain wrote.
Swain had previously rejected calls from the Legal Aid Society to place Rikers under federal receivership to give time for leadership shakeups at the DOC to take effect, but Swain wrote this week that she has lost confidence that the court can trust the city to work in good faith:
"The last nine years also leave no doubt that continued insistence on compliance with the Court's orders by persons answerable principally to political authorities would lead only to confrontation and delay; that the current management structure and staffing are insufficient to turn the tide within a reasonable period; that Defendants have consistently fallen short of the requisite compliance with Court orders for years, at times under circumstances that suggest bad faith; and that enormous resources—that the City devotes to a system that is at the same time overstaffed and underserved—are not being deployed effectively."
Swain has ordered the court monitoring team and both parties in the lawsuit to draft memos including proposed frameworks for a third-party receivership of Rikers, along with legal arguments in favor or opposition, by January 14, 2025.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
TARIFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong thread? Two outa three ain't bad.
Should be, DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The party of slavery and indentured servitude of aliens.
Maybe some of the enslaved immigrants would make good prison guards.
Rikers was no better under Republicans.
It needs to be closed.
When was Rikers last under Republicans?
Remember that management of Rikers is primarily a City Council problem, not something the mayor has unilateral control over. As near as I can tell, the last time Republicans had control of City Council was back in La Guardia’s days (the WW2 years). I don’t remember any stories about Rikers being anywhere near as bad then as it is now.
Why do Democrats in Democrat big cities keep locking Democrat black voters into their prisons?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
The ones in the prisons wouldn't have voted anyway. Registering to vote requires an address, and when you're living illegally in the Section 8 home of your baby-mama (or mother, grandmother, or sister), you don't give your address to the government.
…failures to help inmates who were trying to commit suicide in plain view of officers…
I think it is generally frowned upon for the guards to actively help the inmates commit suicide. It is a blue state with blue state criminals so perhaps that could be encouraged.
Hey, this aint Canada.
Of course, the administration of the receivership will be DEI hires, so don't hold your breath waiting for the situation to improve.
The problem is that we're still utilizing an approach to prison infrastructure (ie. warehousing) that's a century obsolete. The reality is that we don't need anywhere near the amount of prison staff - the ones apparently so susceptible to corruption - as we pretend we do. What we really need to ask is: how can we change the idea of our prison system to minimize the amount of Corrections personnel needed to effectively manage it.
And there's a real simple solution to that problem. The core of virtually all prison problems - from inmate abuses, to drug/contraband proliferation, to gang activity, and to corrections officer corruption - stem from the same thing: free association of the inmate population. The more daily autonomy the convicts have (mess, yard time, work programs, in-person visitation, and the like), the more potential there is for problems.
So, take it away. All of it. Put each inmate in a single cell, complete with toiletry facilities and a window for outdoor ventilation. And leave them in it. 24/7/365 for the length of their sentence (the guidelines for which would be shortened, within reason). At which point, the only concern for correction officers is the initial and final transport in and out of the cell. The rest they monitor remotely.
And no, it doesn't need to be a gulag. Three square meals a day under the door, of which they're given options. Fresh laundry and linens at least twice a week; toiletries as needed. Heat and AC can be managed. There are solutions for educational opportunities or personal entertainment. Visitation/court appearance can be done remotely. Healthcare can be managed by teledoc/RPM. So on and so forth. Honestly, we wouldn't even have to segregate the prisons by sex any further. They would have zero contact with each other by virtue of never leaving their cells.
Whatever 8A considerations you might be coming up with, there's undoubtedly an accommodation to be made for it.
Losing control of Rikers would be a huge embarrassment for New York City
Pssh, add it to the list. NYC is a joke now. Should really be calling it New Caracas.
Extended solitary confinement is torture. Not only are there lots of legal precedents saying so, there are solid scientific studies detailing the degredation of mental processes as extended isolation continues. What you are proposing would be inhumane.
Remember also that Rikers is a jail, not a prison. From the latest statistics I can find, 85% of detainees are pretrial defendants who have not yet been found guilty. There is (obviously) a sufficient legal basis to detain them but no legal basis to impose the punishment of solitary confinement.
Again, as I said - there's no 8A consideration that can't be properly mitigated. We could encase tablets in plexiglass that would allow incoming (but not outgoing) calls at any time a friend or loved one wants to see/hear from them. They could attend GED or higher education classes through remote learning. They could have access to any number of appropriately vetted digital materials - from books to broadway - to help them occupy their time. Heck, I've been reading that "AI Friends" are a new thing that's capturing the Gen-Z attention. Literally, they just sit around and chat with a fake person all day long, and love it. That's the cushiest "solitary confinement" one could imagine.
And let's not forget about the fact that COVID hypochondria forced all of us to learn how to adapt to this kind of situation. Which we did. One could argue the merits of whether we should have had to - but the fact of the matter is, most of us figured it out. And in a prison situation, with no access to drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc; and daily health monitoring and nutrition - they'll likely fare even better.
It's all do-able. You're just being reflexive without first considering the potential. Stop that.
There is (obviously) a sufficient legal basis to detain them but no legal basis to impose the punishment of solitary confinement.
Again, the root of the problem is prison association. We have to reconsider our entire approach to inmate housing and detainee holding. (And frankly, many detainees would probably drop to the floor with gratitude at being kept isolated from other detainees. Ever seen a regular joe brought in on a bench warrant he didn't even know about get tossed in a holding cell with a tweaker or a pervert?)
And here’s another consideration: make it elective.
An inmate/detainee can choose this kind of cell at their own discretion. That takes 8A off the table completely; can hardly be "torture" if you're fully informed of the situation and request it. Anybody who wants a cell mate can request one, no reason we can’t set them up for dual occupancy, but it would have to be agreed to by the incoming party (and obviously no coed situations).
And then they don’t leave the cell for the duration of their sentence; unless abuse is determined or one elects to trade up to a single unit.
Easy peasy. That takes any concerns about “solitary confinement” off the table completely.
I don't have the patience or bandwidth to explain to you how incredibly inhumane and Statist your opinion is. All I can say is that I'm glad it is your opinion and not policy.
I haven't offered any opinions. What are you going on about?
New York is laughing. Sure, who in the FedGov is going to be able to walk in and 'fix' Rikers? Who's going to come in first to be thrown in the woodchipper and have their career destroyed?
Wow. I wonder which political leaders actually run these big city jails and police departments?
Must be those "nazis" I've been hearing about?
All Liberal Democrat policies!
But ‘Muh SyStEmIc RaAaCiSm!’ Too bad it’s not normal white conservatives but liberals doing Rikers!
Mixed feelings. When state and local governments violate civil liberties, the DOJ and Federal Courts have the right to enjoin that behavior. Ergo, to say, "This behavior must stop." However, when the Federal Courts and DOJ take over management of state and local government functions, especially for an extended period, that violates basic Federalist principles, State sovereignty, and the underpinnings of our government. These prisons are horrible and the product of a now moribund paradigm, but it's not the place of the courts to act as the executive.
It's a good thing the Good-Guys/State are in charge, just imagine how horrible it would be otherwise.