Supreme Court Signals Win for Prisoners Seeking Jury Trials

The US Supreme Court at arguments in a prisoner suit seemed more concerned with preserving the historic right to jury trials than the possibility of flooding courts with claims from inmates.

The case heard on Tuesday involves the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman said already accounts for an “outsized” number of federal cases. The act requires that prisoners “exhaust” their administrative remedies before filing in federal court.

All parties agree that the issue of whether the prisoner has fully exhausted administrative avenues is generally one for a judge, not a jury. But the question for the justices is whether that issue must be submitted to a jury when it is bound up in the merits of the litigation.

Kyle Richards sued Michigan corrections officer Thomas Perttu claiming that Perttu sexually harassed him and then retaliated against him by destroying his grievances.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said the question of whether Richards exhausted his administrative remedies by filing grievances was so intertwined with the question of retaliation that both had to go to the jury,

Sherman said a court ruling for Richards would increase the already arduous burden on courts from prisoner suits.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum though seemed to think it was more important to protect the Seventh Amendment jury right.

There is a “presumptive right to a jury in this country,” said Neil Gorsuch.

Requiring the plaintiff to first convince a judge of the same fact before presenting it to a jury would be “flipping the usual default rule,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

The case is Perttu v. Richards, U.S., No. 23-1324, argued 2/25/25.