Top Corrections Litigation Risks for 2026—And How Prison Leaders Can Prepare

Corrections litigation continues to evolve as courts scrutinize whether facilities operate systems that reliably protect constitutional and statutory rights—especially when staffing shortages, documentation gaps and communication breakdowns exist.

In a recent webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by LexisNexis®, retired superintendent and special sheriff Gerard Horgan outlined five areas driving frequent court involvement in 2026: medical and mental health care, suicide precautions, use-of-force standards, religious accommodations and access to courts, including ADA and language access considerations.

This post offers a high-level field guide to help correctional leaders identify vulnerabilities and strengthen daily operations. For deeper analysis, case examples and implementation strategies, you may access the on-demand webinar recording.

1) Medical and mental health care: Delays, systemic failures and ADA exposure

Medical and mental health claims remain a leading driver of corrections litigation. Many cases center on delayed care, systemic breakdowns and ADA-related access failures.

Recurring themes include inadequate care systems, delayed diagnostics and follow-up, and disability-related barriers to services and programming.

Risk indicators leaders should monitor

• Backlogs delaying routine care, specialty referrals, screenings or intake health assessments
• Breakdowns in continuity of care for serious or chronic conditions, including medication access and monitoring
• ADA accommodations not consistently integrated into operations and program access

Operational checklist

• Do we have a weekly high-risk medical and mental health review team that includes custody, clinical leadership and legal?
• Are meeting minutes documented with clear action plans for high-risk individuals?
• Is communication between custody and clinical teams structured and standardized rather than informal?

2) Suicide precautions: Early-custody risk and communication failures

Suicide prevention litigation often centers on what staff knew, how information moved between teams and whether precautions matched the identified risk—particularly during the earliest days of custody.

DOJ data shows a concentration of jail suicides shortly after admission, with most incidents involving hanging or self-strangulation.

High-risk triggers frequently cited in claims

• First incarceration, intense shame or guilt
• After court appearances or receipt of bad news
• Overnight hours, holidays or birthdays
• Restrictive housing placements
• Fear for personal safety, including PREA-related concerns

Operational checklist

• Do we conduct a multidisciplinary after-action review following any completed suicide or serious attempt?
• Are security and mental health teams aligned on risk mitigation goals and communicating consistently?
• Are periodic high-risk review meetings held, and decisions clearly documented?

3) Use of force: Objective standards, documentation and duty to intervene

Use-of-force litigation focuses on whether force was justified under the correct constitutional standard and whether reports demonstrate proportionality, de-escalation efforts and oversight.

Key legal standards include:

• Graham v. Connor—Objective reasonableness standard for arrestees
• Hudson v. McMillian—Malicious and sadistic standard for convicted prisoners
• Kingsley v. Hendrickson—Objective reasonableness for pretrial detainees

Operational checklist

• Does training clearly differentiate legal standards based on population status and constitutional framework?
• Do incident reports consistently document the need for force, amount used, efforts to temper the response, perceived threat, resistance and injuries?
• Do we reinforce de-escalation practices and emphasize the duty to intervene?
• Is the review team structured to identify patterns and coaching opportunities rather than simply checking compliance?

4) Religious accommodations: Diet and worship claims expanding

Religious rights and dietary accommodation claims continue to expand. Courts evaluate whether facilities apply consistent standards and avoid unnecessary barriers that create unequal treatment.

Key legal frameworks include:

• Turner v. Safley—Reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
• RLUIPA—Compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means

Operational checklist

• Do we maintain access to multi-denominational religious staff or a documented plan to seek guidance?
• Are non-mainstream religions addressed through a consistent and neutral process?
• Can we demonstrate Turner and RLUIPA-informed reasoning with documentation when limitations are imposed?

5) Access to courts: Language access, digital access and ADA considerations

Access-to-courts claims increasingly involve language limitations, restricted tablet or legal research availability and ADA accessibility for individuals who are visually or hearing impaired.

Operational checklist

• Do incarcerated individuals have meaningful access to grievance systems and legal research tools regardless of language needs?
• Are technology tools accessible to individuals with disabilities and is support documented?
• Are tablet use policies workable in special management settings?

LexisNexis corrections solutions support these efforts through customizable inmate law libraries and plain-language resources for the incarcerated delivered in secure online or offline formats to align with facility needs.

How Jail Leaders Can Prepare in 2026: Systems Beat Policies

Across all five categories, courts look for reliable systems, not just written policies. That includes documented communication loops, structured review teams, training aligned to governing standards and technology that supports meaningful access.

Ready for a deeper dive with case examples and implementation guidance?

Watch the on-demand webinar recording.

Watch the On-Demand Webinar: Practical Litigation Insights from Gerard Horgan

Want the full breakdown of the cases, risk patterns and operational lessons discussed above?

In this on-demand webinar hosted by the American Jail Association and sponsored by LexisNexis®, Gerard Horgan shares practical insight drawn from more than three decades in corrections leadership. He walks through real-world litigation examples, highlights where facilities commonly fall short and outlines steps leaders can take to reduce exposure.

You’ll learn:

• Where courts are focusing their scrutiny in 2026
• How documentation gaps turn operational issues into legal liability
• What multidisciplinary review teams should be evaluating now
• Practical system improvements that strengthen defensibility

If you’re responsible for jail operations, policy oversight or risk management, this session delivers actionable guidance you can implement immediately.

Watch the on-demand webinar recording

About Gerard Horgan, Esq., CJM

Gerard Horgan brings more than 30 years of corrections experience. He served as Superintendent of Jail Operations at the Norfolk Sheriff’s Office beginning in 2013, supervising uniformed staff, programs, medical, human resources, fiscal operations, legal, classification and administrative functions.

He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, where he teaches courses in corrections and criminal justice.