this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
172 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
21956 readers
979 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does anyone actually understand what the ruling is arguing? It seems to be arguing that the individuals are not liable since they did not sign a contract.
Honesty it is horrifying that the supreme court is now a political tool. Justices should not have a political party affiliation
Ok I'm not a legal expert and I think this is an abhorrent thing. He should have not had his head shaved.
However the main point of the ruling is that he can't sue prison in a federal court because at the time it happened it wasn't technically a federal prison. Which is just a ruling on jurisdiction.
I believe he can still sue other ways.
You can sue in federal court if the act was breaking federal law. This is how most civil rights abuse cases are filed.
Yup. You bet there is an army of asshole lawyers looking for "well, ackshually" technical methods to invalidate the entire bill of rights.
The idea that a fucking PRISON doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights for any kind of technicality is just further confirmation that we're living in a fascist state.