Oregon Prisoners Sue State Over Solitary Confinement, Citing State Constitution's 'Unnecessary Rigor Clause'

What Was Filed

In mid-June 2026, a group of Oregon prisoners filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Corrections, alleging its solitary confinement practices violate the Oregon state constitution's "Unnecessary Rigor Clause." That clause provides protections beyond what the federal Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment requires. Oregon is not alone — Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming have similar state-level provisions.

The plaintiffs are asking a court to declare the practices unconstitutional, issue an injunction blocking the ODOC from continuing them, and establish an independent monitoring regime to hold the department accountable going forward.

One Plaintiff's Account

Dominique Jenkins-Millage, 29, is among the named plaintiffs. He landed in solitary after a brawl at Oregon State Penitentiary that started when he encountered the man convicted of killing his cousin. According to Reason, he now spends at least 23 hours a day in a cell roughly the size of a parking space, with human contact limited to guards and medical staff.

Jenkins-Millage described the conditions as worse than being homeless or being shot. "I would not wish this on anyone," he said. He expected to be released from solitary sometime in July 2026 but acknowledged he could be held longer.

The Legal Argument

George Mills, a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office — a nonprofit public interest law firm representing some of the plaintiffs — framed the case partly as a political irony. "It's ironic that in a state that is pushing back against the Trump administration and is a progressive leader in so many ways is at the same time subjecting people to these degrading, cruel and inhumane issues," Mills told Reason.

Oregon has positioned itself publicly as a civil liberties leader. If the lawsuit's allegations hold up in court, the state's corrections practices would sit in direct tension with that self-image.

The Strongest Counter-Argument

The strongest good-faith argument on the other side is practical: solitary confinement exists largely because prisons need a tool to separate genuinely dangerous inmates from the general population. Jenkins-Millage's own situation illustrates the dilemma — he entered solitary after a multi-person brawl. Prison administrators face real violence, and critics of solitary confinement have not always offered workable alternatives for managing the most dangerous or volatile individuals. Ending solitary categorically could put other inmates and staff at greater risk, and that safety obligation is real and legally enforceable.

The ODOC's response gestures at exactly this balance. A department spokesperson told Reason the agency is already working on "increasing out-of-cell time for people in solitary confinement, building peer mentorship programs, and enhancing violence prevention tools." The spokesperson added that the ODOC is "committed to this long-term cultural transformation" and that its practices "continue to evolve in alignment with research, safety needs, and constitutional standards."

The department declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit.

What the Suit Is Actually Targeting

The lawsuit is NOT asking courts to abolish solitary outright. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of unconstitutionality, an injunction against current practices, and ongoing judicial monitoring. That represents a narrower ask than elimination. Courts have historically been more willing to reform prison conditions than to dictate staffing and security decisions wholesale.

The monitoring regime the plaintiffs want could be significant. Consent decrees in prison cases have a mixed record: some produce real change, others become bureaucratic paperwork exercises. Whether any injunction here would have teeth depends heavily on how a court structures oversight.

A Note on History

Solitary confinement in the U.S. dates to at least 1829, when the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia kept inmates in cells containing little more than a worktable, toilet, skylight, and Bible. The practice has been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly survived. What distinguishes this Oregon lawsuit is the state constitutional hook — the Unnecessary Rigor Clause gives plaintiffs a legal lever that federal Eighth Amendment litigation typically does not.

What Happens Next

The case is a proposed class action, meaning it still needs to be certified by a court before it can proceed on behalf of all similarly situated Oregon inmates. Certification is not automatic and often becomes its own contested legal battle. If the class is certified and the case proceeds to the merits, the central question will be whether Oregon courts interpret the Unnecessary Rigor Clause to impose a meaningful standard beyond federal constitutional minimums — a question that does not yet have a definitive answer in Oregon case law.