WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that incarcerated people have a right to a jury trial when they are accused of failing to file a prison grievance but claim they were prevented from doing so.
In a narrow 5–4 decision in Perttu v. Richards, the Court held that when access to the grievance process is entangled with allegations of abuse or retaliation, it is a jury—not a judge—that must determine the facts.
The case was brought by Kyle Richards and two other men incarcerated at Michigan’s Baraga Correctional Facility. They allege that corrections officer Thomas Perttu sexually abused them and then destroyed their grievance forms in an attempt to silence them—effectively cutting off their only official avenue for reporting the abuse.
After being denied access to the prison grievance system and without legal representation, the men filed a federal lawsuit. In a handwritten complaint submitted in 2020, they described the filing as a “last resort” to stop “a vicious sexual predator from continuing his preying on vulnerable, helpless inmates.” They also claimed they faced threats and retaliation for speaking out.
A district court initially dismissed the case, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996, which requires incarcerated plaintiffs to exhaust all internal grievance procedures before pursuing lawsuits in federal court. The PLRA was designed to reduce frivolous litigation by encouraging the use of administrative remedies.
But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that exhaustion under the PLRA is an affirmative defense governed by standard civil procedure rules. If the dispute over exhaustion is intertwined with the facts of the abuse claim, Roberts wrote, it must go to a jury.
“Parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment,” Roberts wrote. He was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Civil rights advocates hailed the decision as a major step toward restoring access to justice for incarcerated people, who they argue are often denied a fair hearing due to procedural hurdles.
“Too often, courts accept the word of prison officials over incarcerated plaintiffs before the facts are fully heard,” said Jennifer Wedekind, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “This ruling will ensure that more incarcerated plaintiffs finally get their day in front of a jury.”
The ACLU, along with the ACLU of Michigan, Public Justice, and the Legal Aid Society of New York, filed an amicus brief in support of Richards and his co-plaintiffs. The brief argued that access to the courts is a constitutional right—not a technicality—and that denying jury trials in such cases undermines due process protections.
In their brief, the ACLU also rebutted arguments from the state of Michigan that jury trials in these cases would lead to a flood of litigation. They pointed out that only a small fraction of PLRA cases involve genuine factual disputes over exhaustion and noted that courts already have the authority to dismiss meritless claims.
The brief also asserted that the state’s concerns were unsupported by empirical evidence and emphasized that constitutional rights should not be sacrificed for the sake of judicial efficiency.
The ruling resolves a split among lower courts. Several circuits, including the Tenth, have allowed judges to decide exhaustion issues even when the facts are disputed. The Supreme Court sided with the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, which allow juries to weigh in when allegations of abuse or retaliation are closely tied to claims of grievance exhaustion.
In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh—argued that the majority had interpreted the PLRA too broadly. Barrett wrote that Congress did not explicitly grant incarcerated plaintiffs a right to a jury trial on exhaustion questions. The majority rejected that argument.
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said the decision sends a clear message about the importance of accountability in prisons.
“Today’s decision is important for the rights of incarcerated people, who too often are blocked from having their day in court after prison officers first violate their rights—and then take steps to silence them,” Wang said in a statement. “The Perttu decision is a broader victory for due process and our fundamental constitutional principle that no one is above the law.”
