In Re: Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters,174 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 1999) is a published April 1999 opinion from the Fourth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.  After a series of violent prison incidents involving involving members of the Five Percent Nation of Islam (the Five Percenters), the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) classified the Five Percenters as a Security Threat Group (STG).  Acting under its Security Threat Group policy, the SCDC then transferred all Five Percenters to administrative segregation or to maximum custody confinement.

The Five Percenters then brought suit in Federal Distrct Court, raising challenges to this policy under the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.  I served as local counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights in this lawsuit.  After the district court granted summary judgment to the SCDC, the Five Percenters appealed.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that because the designation of the Five Percenters as an STG was a rational response to a threat to prison safety–a concern the court held was peculiarly within the province of penal authorities–members of the group were allowed to be held in administrative segregation or to maximum custody confinement without an individualized finding of dangerousness.

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

May 9th Q&A with Professor Marcia Zug about You’ll Do at Blue Bicycle Books

On May 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. I will be doing a Q&A with Marcia Zug, the Miles and Ann Loadholt Professor of

[ + ] Read More

What Challengers gets right about modern marriage

Before I started law school, I was one of two film reviewers for what is now the Philadelphia Weekly. My wife’s and my

[ + ] Read More

Slightly modified Gandy opinion makes two small factual corrections

On March 20, 2024, the South Carolina Court of Appeals refiled its opinion in Gandy v. Gandy, making two minor factual adjustments. The

[ + ] Read More