:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/RI7HN6LABFGTVJVGYT6JCCJ56Q.jpg)
“Yada yada” means “boring or empty talk.” It replaces words too dull or predictable to bear repeating. Stand-up comedian Lenny Bruce used it in 1961. It was resurrected in a “Seinfeld” episode.
The Alaska Supreme Court’s recent decision, IN RE: the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jayden A., is yada yada about the rights of Alaskans suspected of being mentally ill. At issue was a Superior Court judge’s order that Jayden be transported and detained for 72 hours for a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he met the criteria to be committed for a longer period. By law, the transportation must be “immediate.”
Instead, according to our state Supreme Court, Alaskans have been repeatedly “detained” before being transported for “almost six times as long as the evaluation period” — because there wasn’t room at the state evaluation facility.
“Detained” is a daintified way of saying the state held these Alaskans in custody against their will. That some may have been detained in a hospital setting doesn’t change that. If they don’t agree to being locked up, they’re overpowered by staff and strapped down.
In Jayden A., the Court recounted multiple cases where it had previously ruled such “unreasonably lengthy detentions” violated due process. Apparently, the Superior Court judge in Jayden’s case hadn’t gotten the Supreme Court’s repeated rulings — or simply defied them.
Worse yet, after Jayden was detained for seven days, his attorney requested the Superior Court immediately review whether the ongoing detention violated his rights. Even though the request was unopposed, the Superior Court judge scheduled the review for 12 days later — during which time Jayden would continue to be “detained.” Jayden’s attorney immediately petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court “reiterated” the previous cases where it had already ruled such lengthy detentions waiting for a 72-hour evaluation violated due process. As if this “yada yada” wasn’t enough, the Supreme Court added:
“(W)e must emphasize the critical nature of the superior court’s review of the commitment process, particularly where pre-evaluation confinement becomes prolonged. … (T)he court scheduled a review hearing for what would have been Jayden’s 19th day in court-ordered pre-evaluation confinement. That … undoubtedly raises concerns about a respondent’s substantive due process rights, particularly in light of our decisions(.)”
These unconstitutional confinements don’t just happen with pre-evaluation detentions. Last year I wrote about another Alaska Supreme Court decision — In Re Sergio F. The Superior Court had violated Sergio’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to a 90-day involuntary psychiatric commitment while ignoring statutory requirements. The Supreme Court emphasized it had also repeatedly addressed that abuse in prior decisions.
Moreover, these repeated violations don’t just occur in cases the Supreme Court decides to hear. An independent study last year of 30 consecutive cases where the state sought to forcibly drug Alaskans with mental illness revealed a systemic denial of due process by Superior Court judges. I wrote about that, too. What was the response of the Alaska Supreme Court to this systemic judicial failure? It rhymes with yada — nada.
The Supreme Court’s reiterated and re-emphasized yada yada might be comical, except it’s not funny for the Alaskans unconstitutionally locked up.
As Nick Feronti, attorney for the Northern Justice Project said, “If this happened in the criminal context — for instance, if people were just held in prison without cause and additional scrutiny for longer than 48 hours — it would be absurd. It would be illegal.”
But criminal proceedings happen in open court. Proceedings involving Alaskans suspected of being mentally ill are held in secrecy, allegedly to protect their privacy. Instead, the secrecy hides from public view the courts’ systemic failures to protect the rights of Alaskans who have committed no crime.
The constitutional rights of these vulnerable Alaskans aren’t a comedy routine. Enough with the yada yada. If the Superior Court judges are ignoring or defying the Alaska Supreme Court’s decisions, they should be ordered to attend mandatory training, disciplined or both.
By statute, judges can have their pay withheld if they fail to decide a matter for more than six months. Perhaps the same should occur if they defy the state Supreme Court’s rulings. Maybe they should have to attest they’re reading the higher court’s decisions.
There’s another consequence of our judicial branch not upholding the constitutional rights of these Alaskans. It leaves the legislative and executive branches unchecked. The separation of our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government so that each branch provides an independent check and balance on the powers of the other ensures no one branch can run roughshod over citizens.
Our Legislature passed laws authorizing the state (the executive branch) to forcibly confine Alaskans suspected of having mental illness. Those laws and our state constitution demand due process for these Alaskans. That includes prescribed time limits and a proven need for confinement. But the Legislature has failed to fund community-based services (cheaper in the long run) that can relieve the pressure on state psychiatric facilities, and it has underfunded the state facilities.
Instead of exercising a check on this unfunded power exercise by the Legislature and state to unconstitutionally confine vulnerable Alaskans, Superior Court judges are issuing court orders that enable it — again and again. And how does the Alaska Supreme Court respond? Yada yada. It’s unconstitutional. It’s shameful. It certainly isn’t funny.
Val Van Brocklin is a former state and federal prosecutor in Alaska who now trains and writes on criminal justice topics nationwide. She lives in Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.