Pearson v. Hodgson

In Pearson v. Hodgson, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will consider whether a sheriff has authority under Massachusetts law to enter into a contract for “site commissions”—essentially, legalized kickbacks—with Securus, a correctional telecom provider. Under the agreement in question, the sheriff’s office received almost 50 percent of Securus’s revenues for calls with incarcerated people in the county. These kickbacks came directly out of the pockets of incarcerated people and their loved ones, whose call rates doubled when the agreement was put in place.

We filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of the ACLU of Massachusetts, MediaJustice, and Worth Rises. The brief starts by explaining that the correctional telecommunications industry is highly concentrated, with no incentives for providers to lower rates. The brief then argues that the sheriff’s contract with Securus exploits low-income people with loved ones who are incarcerated. Incarcerated people in Massachusetts disproportionately enter the system from impoverished backgrounds, and incarceration leaves them and their families more cash poor than when they came in. As such, the brief argues, the sheriff’s agreement siphoned off resources from those least able to part with them. Lastly, the brief outlines the substantial benefits for incarcerated people, their families, and society writ large of regular contact between incarcerated people and their loved ones.

The brief reflects an early example of our new focus on state supreme courts as a forum to vindicate the rights of incarcerated people.