SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - What would you risk for an hour of sunlight every day?

Prisoners from the San Francisco jail system asked a panel of Ninth Circuit judges on Thursday to reverse the results of their previous court win, arguing that the remedies ordered by a lower court have been inadequate and inmates need at least one hour of daily access to direct sunlight to maintain their health.

However, the panel said that even bringing the appeal before could jeopardize their earlier victory, a four-year legal effort that already earned the inmates 15 minutes of daily access to direct sunlight.

The judge warned that if the court vacates or remands the previous ruling, it could cost them their previous victory.

"You could go back again, and you could do worse," U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, told the inmates. "You should be careful what you ask for."

If it decides to vacate the earlier decision, the inmates could lose everything, including an order that secured them their daily sunlight.

The inmates asked the panel to return the issue to a lower court with direction to enter a more appropriate remedy that "actually addresses and corrects" the constitutional violation found by the court.

In May 2019, pretrial detainees who were housed either at the now-defunct San Francisco Hall of Justice or at a facility in nearby San Bruno sued San Francisco, claiming their constitutional rights were violated due to the lack of exposure to natural light.

The inmates further claim that they have suffered psychological distress, obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, myopia and other health problems because of their lack of access to natural light and small cells, which discouraged exercise.

Although the inmates won a bench trial in October 2023, they appealed the decision in August 2024, asking the Ninth Circuit to send its case back down so it could get a decision.

"Well, you won, but you didn't win enough, is what you're complaining about. Right?" Callahan asked.

Attorney Yolanda Huang, who represents the inmates, told Courthouse News that the biggest problem with the court's previous order is that it only provides for 15 minutes of daily sunlight access after one year of being locked down.

"So, you could go to jail and you wouldn't see the sun for a year before you went out," Huang told Courthouse News.

The panel had reservations with the case's record, which it said lacked sufficient medical testimony linking the lack of sunlight to the inmate's health problems.

Although the inmates had a medical expert testify at trial to the detrimental health effects of sunlight deprivation, the panel said that many of his statements were too broad or didn't make any specific recommendations.

"So, where do we get the 15 minutes? It kind of seemed like it's pulled out of nowhere," Callahan questioned.

U.S Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, a Joe Biden appointee, said that securing an hour for each inmate could also have unintended consequences when combined with the city's staff shortages.

Because the city's jails require a certain amount of staff before they can allot yard time for the inmates, Koh said that their one-hour solution could actually result in more lockdowns and less overall time out of their cells for the SF Prison Population.

Interestingly, San Francisco did not challenge the lower court's finding that a constitutional violation took place, although it did ask the panel to affirm the decision already in place.

"Are you conceding that the plaintiff has now presented sufficient evidence in this issue and that we can affirm that a person suffers harm or disability without daily access to sunlight?" Callahan asked.

"I don't think that's in dispute, and so I don't think the court needs to address it," said Kaitlyn Murphy of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, who represented the city and county.

Callahan said the lack of this argument was "really weird," considering that the city spent most of its briefs arguing how the plaintiffs got "everything wrong."

The panel did not indicate when it would issue a ruling.

Outside the courtroom, Huang told Courthouse News she felt good about the inmates' chances.

"It's hard to read with this panel. I'm hoping that they make a reasoned decision, and if they do, I think that they would go for us," Huang said.

In 2023, a federal judge ruled that the city of San Francisco violated the 14th Amendment rights of prisoners at County Jail 3 in San Bruno by denying them access to direct sunlight.

Based on the physical harm suffered by plaintiffs and the lack of reasoning from the defendant for the denial of sunlight access, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Kim ruled that plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that complete denial of exposure to direct sunlight is a violation of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.

This case was originally filed in the Northern District of California and was heard at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The panel of judges was rounded out by Bridget S. Bade, a Donald Trump appointee.

Source: Courthouse News Service