Inmates with Heat-Sensitive Health Conditions: Surveying Prisoner Litigation in the Age of Climate Change *

• Published date: 01 March 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168231166748
• Author: Jazmin E. Palacios,Michael S. Vaughn
• Date: 01 March 2025
• Subject Matter: Original Articles

Inmates with Heat-Sensitive

Health Conditions: Surveying

Prisoner Litigation in the Age of

Climate Change

*

Jazmin E. Palacios

1

and Michael S. Vaughn

2

Abstract

Rising temperatures and severe heat, as a result of climate change, have led to a signif‌icant number

of heat-related deaths and injuries among correctional populations in the United States. This article

analyzes cases from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in which inmates challenged the constitution-

ality of their conditions of conf‌inement in extremely hot facilities pursuant Title 42 U.S. Code

Section 1983. An inductive analysis of caselaw revealed two themes: inmates with heat-sensitive

health conditions and reasonable staff responses to inmate’s heat exposure. The article concludes

by offering policy guidance to prison off‌icials based on the themes revealed in the circuit court deci-

sions and by providing recommendations for future research.

Keywords

corrections section 1983 litigation, prison conditions of conf‌inement, hot prisons, extreme heat in

prisons, health and medical care in prisons

Introduction

Increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere correspond with

enormous changes in the environment, including a rise in global temperatures (National

Aeronautics & Space Administration [NASA], 2022). According to NASA (2021), the Earth’s tem-

perature has risen approximately 2 °F since the late nineteenth century, the start of the industrial rev-

olution (see also Lindsey & Dahlman, 2022). Climate scientists predict that a 2° warmer planet will

lead to an upsurge in deaths from heat, smog, and infectious disease (Borenstein, 2022). In fact, in the

1

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Institute for Legal Studies in Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State

University, Huntsville, TX, USA

*

An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the 2021 American Society of Criminology meeting, held in Chicago,

IL.

Corresponding Author:

Michael S. Vaughn, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Institute for Legal Studies in Criminal Justice, Sam

Houston State University, 816 17th St., P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville, TX 77340, USA.

Email: mvaughn@shsu.edu

Original Article

Criminal Justice Review

2025, Vol. 50(1) 5-25

© 2023 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168231166748

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

United States alone, excessive heat causes more deaths than any other weather-related event (i.e.,

hurricanes, tornadoes, and/or f‌looding) (U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention [CDC],

2017a).

Although the risks of climate change may appear to be universal, certain populations are highly

vulnerable to the consequences of changing weather patterns (Ebi et al., 2018). Research shows

adverse consequences of heat exposure on individuals less tolerant, such as the elderly, pregnant

mothers, outdoor workers, the poor, and those with chronic health conditions (i.e., those with diabe-

tes, respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases) (Cil & Cameron, 2017; Hess et al.,

2014; Hopp et al., 2018; Prudent et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). One study found the elderly are

subject to higher heat-related health risks due to age-weakened physiology, which slows the

body’s ability to cool itself in heat-stressful conditions (Itani et al., 2020). Another study showed

that chronic health conditions, including the number of conditions, increased the risk of hospital

admission or death among patients with acute heat illness in U.S. emergency departments from

2006 to 2010 (Hess et al., 2014). World Health Organization (2018), however, argued that the

impact of global warming on human health will be highly contingent upon local government

intervention.

The criminal justice system is not immune to climate change. The U.S. houses approximately 2.3

million people in prisons and jails across the nation (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020; see also Kaeble &

Cowhig, 2018). Like in the general U.S. population, older adults are the fastest-growing demo-

graphic in the U.S. prison system (Skarupski et al., 2018; see Bavafa & Mukherjee, 2019). From

1993 to 2013, the number of prisoners aged 55 or older increased by 400%, which accounted for

more than 10% of the total U.S. prison population (Carson & Sabol, 2016). Furthermore, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that older prisoners are up to three times more likely than

younger persons to suffer from chronic health conditions (Maruschak et al., 2015). To treat their

chronic illnesses, inmates are prescribed medications (e.g., psychotropic, endocrinological, and

hypertension drugs) that can interfere with body temperature regulation, thus increasing health

risks from extreme heat (Chammah, 2017).

Several inmates have resorted to federal courts for relief against heat-related conditions (Holt,

2015). This article analyzes cases from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, in which inmates chal-

lenged the constitutionality of their conditions of conf‌inement in extremely hot facilities. It provides

an overview of U.S. Supreme Court caselaw on conditions of conf‌inement, but the Court has not

established precedent and the legal standard of liability when prisoners are exposed to extreme

heat in correctional facilities. Then, the article examines court litigation on heat-related problems

within correctional facilities. Inductive, doctrinal legal analysis within the grounded theory tradition

is employed (Nolasco et al., 2010). Litigation is presented within an organization framework themat-

ically representative of legal actions surrounding hot temperature extremes in prisons. The article

concludes by offering policy guidance to prison off‌icials based on the themes revealed in the exam-

ination of lower court cases challenging heat-related conditions of conf‌inement.

Methods

This article utilizes inductive methods involving analytic procedures of grounded theory to identify

legal doctrines, concepts, representations, and themes of court litigation and case law concerning

excessive heat in correctional facilities. Grounded theory is the “discovery of theory from [system-

atic] data”that provides relevant “predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications”

(Glaser & Strauss, 1999, p. 1). Doctrinal legal research involves an analysis of “legal precedent

and[/or] legislative interpretation”to “reveal a statement of the law relevant to the matter under inves-

tigation”(Gawas, 2017, p. 129). Nolasco et al. (2010, p. 7) def‌ine doctrinal legal research as the

“process of analyzing facts, identifying and organizing legal issues, f‌inding, reading, and

6Criminal Justice Review 50(1)