Arizona asks Supreme Court to block takeover of prisons healthcare

For Tucson residents with relatives or friends in Arizona prisons, the next major decision about medical and mental health care could come from the U.S. Supreme Court. State officials are asking the justices to stop a court-appointed receiver from taking control of the prison health system on Oct. 19. The dispute concerns care for roughly 25,000 incarcerated people statewide, including the standards, staffing and spending that affect patients, families and correctional employees across Arizona.

The request comes from attorneys representing Ryan Thornell, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry. In a filing submitted Wednesday, they argued that the department has made substantial progress since a federal judge ordered a broad overhaul in 2023. The state says it has doubled spending on inmate health care, hired more staff, improved facilities and expanded access to treatment for substance use disorders. Those changes, the attorneys contend, should lead to a remedy short of removing control from the state corrections department.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver has reached a different conclusion. She previously found that Arizona’s prison health system had constitutional deficiencies, and earlier this year determined that it still was not fulfilling its legal obligations. Silver appointed Annette Chambers-Smith, a former director of Ohio’s prison system, to take control. Her authority would include hiring and firing employees, ending contracts and, with court approval, directing the state to spend additional money on health care. After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the appointment, Silver set Oct. 19 as the takeover date.

The case has been pending since 2012, a history Silver has emphasized while evaluating the state’s claims of improvement. In a 200-page ruling issued in 2022, she said prison care remained “plainly grossly inadequate” and that state officials had shown deliberate indifference to the serious risks facing incarcerated people. Her 2023 order then laid out specific requirements for staffing and medical care. State officials have made repeated promises to correct the problems, but Silver has said the system’s pace of change has not been sufficient.

The state’s latest filing does not deny that Arizona prisons still fall short of the legal standards for care. Instead, its attorneys argue that the judge should have used a less intrusive penalty. They point to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, which they say requires courts to use the least intrusive measures needed to bring a government agency into compliance. Receivership, they argue, is supposed to be a last resort, and Silver did not meet that standard before granting Chambers-Smith broad control over the system.

The filing also raises a question about the limits of federal judicial power over state government. Arizona’s attorneys contend that it is uncertain whether legal precedent permits a federal judge to place a critical state function under a receiver despite the state agency’s objections. They describe the corrections department as operating at the highest level of state authority. Thornell was appointed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate, and the state argues that transferring his authority would improperly displace officials who are accountable through Arizona’s political system.

To make the emergency appeal, the state retained Paul Clement, a prominent Supreme Court advocate. Reuters has reported that Clement bills $2,650 an hour. He urged the justices to consider what could happen if Chambers-Smith takes over in October, but the 9th Circuit later rules for Arizona in the state’s broader appeal. In that situation, Clement argued, authority could shift to the receiver and then return to Thornell within months, producing what he characterized as chaos. The state says the Supreme Court should prevent that possibility while the underlying legal challenge continues.

The request now goes first to Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency applications assigned to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. She may ask attorneys representing the incarcerated people to respond, or she may refer the matter to the full court. The justices have not set a date for further action, and the court is currently the only institution that can stop the scheduled Oct. 19 transfer before it begins. Much of the state’s filing repeats arguments already presented to Silver and the 9th Circuit, including the claim that health care has improved during the past three years.

The outcome could determine whether Arizona’s corrections department remains responsible for implementing the reforms or whether an outside administrator gains direct control over one of the state’s most consequential public systems. For people in Tucson and elsewhere who depend on the prison system to provide timely medical, psychiatric and substance use care, the legal dispute is not only about institutional authority. It also concerns whether years of court orders and state promises will produce measurable changes, and who will be responsible for delivering them if the current system continues to fall short.