One population is particularly vulnerable during a deadly heat wave, like the historically near-stalling wave that has plagued much of the United States this week.

Over the past 20 years, combined with extreme heat, inadequate ventilation and outdated infrastructure, have already amplified the conditions of Grimm of more than a million Americans in correctional facilities. One study found that around 13% of deaths behind Texas bars during warm months could be attributed to extreme heat. Another reported that an unsafe heat index (“feeling-like” temperature) could increase violent interactions in prison by 20%. High temperatures are also correlated with a 30% increase in daily suicide surveillance cases, scholars say. Even states known for cool weather in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest are competing with the stifling fever of prisons because they don’t often have the proper infrastructure to manage extreme heat.

As the Earth warmed at an “unprecedented rate,” extreme temperatures became commonplace in parts of the country. Last year was the warmest year on record, according to NASA, but it’s only getting hot.

However, extreme temperatures are not the only source of climate-related dangers to those who are incarcerated. Last fall, a severe back-to-back hurricane was once again exacerbated by climate change, but prompted orders for evacuation of millions and destroyed much of the southeastern United States. As nearby communities sought safety, imprisoned people in North Carolina were trapped in flooded cells with no electricity or working toilets until five days at Hurricane Helen. Florida officials have chosen not to evacuate prisons and prisons near Tampa, some of Florida, the most vulnerable to the deadly flooding of Hurricane Milton, even if the mayor of Tampa told residents.

California’s catastrophic January wildfires – Many incarcerated residents fueled by hot, dry conditions caused by climate change were facing shelters and safety plans, but around 800 incarcerated firefighters attacked and wanted to attack.

Many factors exacerbate the risks of those who are incarcerated. Many state prisons have been built in areas that are particularly vulnerable to climate-related emergency situations. The people behind the bar have chronic illnesses such as incidence of mental illness and diabetes, heart disease and physical immobilization. And as increasingly long writing keeps people in physical environments old, the proportion of people over 55 in jail has grown to about five times more than 30 years ago. “Elder adults are at a higher risk of fever-related illnesses and death,” says the National Institute of Aging.

The current administration’s move to halt climate initiatives and increase fracking and oil exports is a blow to efforts to combat climate change as a whole, and could exacerbate the situation for those who have been imprisoned.

A slight federal protection

Incarcerated people relied on federal courts for relief, claiming extreme temperatures were “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Constitution. The majority have failed.

Some people asked prisons to order air conditioners to be installed in prisons, and they asked them to take other measures to reduce fever and prevent illness and death. One ongoing case, for example, claims that people incarcerated in Texas are “killed” in an airless unit. The judge recently agreed that the state is likely to violate the Eighth Amendment, but denied a request for an interim injunction ordering the installation of air conditioning. The case is scheduled to be tried in March 2026. Meanwhile, people in Texas jailed explain that they pour tap water on themselves to keep cool and to get a relocation to an air-conditioned mental ward.

The imprisoned plaintiff, challenging the extreme temperatures of federal courts, has achieved several notable victories over the years. For example, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that “homes for people with existing medical conditions would “live in very hot cells without adequate access to heat relief measures,” each of whom is aware that he suffers from conditions that make him very vulnerable to serious heat-related injuries, but violates the eighth amendment.” The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hugged the man in a frigid cell for more than four days and said he “requires (ignorant) his windows to repair, or provide blankets, coats, or other means of extreme coldness in warmth.” A Tennessee district court then found that authorities violated the 8th amendment rights of a man who was held in the county jail for a week during a heat wave with a steel door and no air conditioning cell. Cell was at least 110 degrees during the day and 103 degrees at night. The man died of a fever stroke.

But more generally, incarcerated plaintiffs lose. When people in the Mississippi Delta sued about the swelling summer temperatures of their cells, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit reminded them, citing a 1981 Supreme Court case, “The Constitution does not mandate a comfortable prison.” The court said it reduced the heat for three months, “the temperature was recorded above 95 degrees and above 75 degrees.” The plaintiff said, “There was no need to wear many clothes.”

In fact, there are only a few victories compared to the number of cases submitted and the urgency of the issue. A federal lawsuit challenging prison excessive heat violating the 8th Amendment has increased as temperatures rose. Between 1980 and 2019, more than 1,200 federal lawsuits were filed claiming that extreme temperatures in prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Court records show that over 500 such cases have been filed over the past five years. This is an increase of over 300% compared to the filing rate over 40 years.

The federal court made it extremely difficult for an incarcerated plaintiff to win claims that his terms were inhumane. They have great respect for prisons and prison operators and have published the burdensome standards that such plaintiffs must meet. They supported the doctrine of qualified immunity. It protects state officials from accountability for everything but the worst offences. And they even dismiss merit claims that they failed to comply with the troublesome demands of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, such as the requirement that people who were incarcerated to disrupt the path of administrative relief before filing a claim in court.

Hope at the state level?

There is reason to believe that, at least in some states, state constitutional claims challenge themselves to challenge climate-related circumstances.

State courts can freely interpret their constitution as more protective than their federal counterparts. In particular, it suggests that the constitutions of many states are separate from the texts of the 8th amendment and can be read more widely. 16 states prohibit “cruelty” or Unusual Punishment” – in contrast to the 8th ban on amendments to “cruel and unusual” punishments – and then another six simply cruel punishments. In these states, punishments that are merely cruel but not uncommon should be unconstitutional.

The constitutions of other states contain clauses that are expressly relevant to the circumstances of prisons that do not have federal equivalents. For example, the five state constitutions state that “people arrested or trapped in prison are not treated with unnecessary rigor.” Delaware’s obligations require “appropriate respect” for “convict health” in the “construction” of physical facilities. Georgia requires that “no one will be abused while he is arrested or by being arrested in prison.”

Additionally, some states have declined in their eligible immunity to state defendants in circumstances that do not correspond to the prison litigation reform law or are available in federal courts.

Although several state Supreme Courts have already ruled that their constitution grants a wider right than the 8th Amendment, most of these cases have considered protection against excessive judgments rather than inhumane conditions. However, there are also some promising state decisions in the context of prison conditions. For example, the Supreme Court in Washington expressly rejects federal standards that require incarcerated plaintiffs to prove harmful to prison officials, and instead directs the court to consider whether the conditions pose an objectively serious risk of harm. Applying that standard, the High Court has found that easy-to-access toilets and bathing facilities violate the state constitution, rejecting men tied to wheelchairs.

Meanwhile, imprisoned people in Oregon have successfully achieved state constitutional provisions that prohibit both unnecessary rigor and cruel and unusual punishment, challenging a variety of injustice. An Oregon court ordered prisons to remove people with mental illness from solitary confinement and provide gender-affirming care to trans people. The State High Court has made it clear that claims of unnecessary rigor require a “purely objective” analysis.

These decisions suggest that some state courts are also open to extending the state’s constitutional protections when they challenge stifling heat or extreme cold conditions. However, to our knowledge, the state Supreme Court has not properly considered whether extreme temperatures in prisons and prisons violate the state constitution. We have only revealed one case that touched on this issue. In 1982, the Massachusetts High Court rejected the claim that it provided separation time for cells with solid steel doors that inhibit ventilation, resulting in cell temperatures up to 90 degrees.

Perhaps the lack of state incidents in the area is a matter of inertia. If you are investigating a potential claim that you may not see an alternative to a federal court because you are investigating a potential claim. Or they may choose federal court because they believe they are likely to secure representatives of lawyers there because of federal and federal laws that allow them to collect attorney fees for federal programs that are consistent with civil rights lawyers and civil rights lawsuits. Some are uncertain about the vehicles used to raise the state’s constitutional claims. After all, few state legislatures have passed laws that allow private claims for violations of the state constitution, as they did for the federal violation of 1983 in 1871.

••••

As temperatures continue to rise, the legal battle over prison conditions underscores the urgent need for reform. State legislatures must pass bills to protect those who are incarcerated, and prisons must adopt climate-conscious policies. And if they don’t, supporters should consider the state’s constitutional lawsuit and hold them accountable and save lives.

Samson Tu provided research for this article.

Ava Kaufman is a special assistant to the Director of the Judicial Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Brianna Seid is an attorney for the Justice Program at Brennan Center.

Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot is a senior advisor to the Judicial Program and Management Editor at Brennan Center. State Court Report.

Suggested citations: Ava Kaufman, Brianna Seid, and Katrina Szymborski Wolfkot, Extreme fever exacerbates the tragic prison situation with little path to reliefsᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (June 26, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysisis-opinion/extreme-heat-exacerbates-dire-prison-conditions-fw-paths-rem