On October 30, 2006, two unions (the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Service Employees International Union Local 1000) and an individual California correctional officer filed suit against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the Sacramento County Superior Court under state law. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to declare a state of emergency based on overcrowding in California's prisons and then use the state of emergency to transfer California prisoners to out-of-state private prisons violated the California Emergency Services Act and the Civil Service Mandate of the California Constitution. The plaintiffs asked for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the prisoner transfers and cancel the transfer contracts.

The case developed from longstanding overcrowding in California's prisons. On October 4, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger issued the Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Proclamation so that the State could ship thousands of inmates to out-of-state prisons to ease overcrowding. Following the Proclamation, the State contracted with two prison companies and began moving prisoners out of California.

On February 20, 2007, the Superior Court (Judge Gail Ohanesian) ruled that Governor Schwarzenegger's Emergency Proclamation was "unlawful," and held that the State of California was not allowed to contract for services that were usually performed by civil service employees within the state. The Court enjoined the CDCR from transferring any inmates out of state under contracts that were signed in accordance with the Emergency Proclamation. The defendants appealed, and on April 12, 2007, the court of appeals (Presiding Judge Arthur Scotland) issued an order staying the judgment of the Superior Court.

On June 4, 2008, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. Judge Scotland concluded that the Governor did not exceed his powers in declaring a state of emergency based on prison overcrowding and that records were sufficient to establish that services for which the CDCR contracted were “not available within civil service.” Therefore, the court held that the private contracts did not violate Article VII of the California Constitution, which restricts California from hiring private contractors to perform state functions. The matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment denying the plaintiffs’ petition for injunctive relief on the same day. The plaintiffs were ordered to reimburse the defendants for the attorney costs of their appeal. 163 Cal. App. 4th 802.

Dan Dalton - 04/16/2007
Averyn Lee - 06/09/2019


compress summary