A federal judge has ordered air conditioning in every Texas Department of Criminal Justice prison by the end of 2029, finding that conditions in unair-conditioned facilities violate the Constitution. The ruling grew out of a case shaped by women with experience of incarceration, but it covers everyone housed in those prisons—not only women.
What did the Texas prison ruling require?
On Tuesday, Sept. 22, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ordered the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or TDCJ, to develop and carry out a plan to install air conditioning in every prison it operates. The work must be complete by Dec. 31, 2029.
Pitman found that conditions in prisons without air conditioning violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. He also found that the agency’s existing response to heat was not enough to remedy the violation.
The ruling requires TDCJ to report its progress to the court every six months. Those reports must describe the agency’s plan, funding requests, work completed, next steps and whether it remains on schedule. The first report is due March 22, 2027.
The order does not dictate how the agency must install the equipment, and Pitman did not appoint a special master to oversee construction. Instead, TDCJ must document its plans and progress for the court. That leaves important implementation choices with the agency, while giving the judge regular opportunities to review whether the deadline is being met.
Why did the judge find prison heat unconstitutional?
The court’s findings describe a large gap between the number of people in TDCJ housing and the air-conditioned beds available during the trial. The agency had 52,438 air-conditioned “cool beds,” about 37% of its population at the time. Heading into summer 2026, the court estimated that about 88,697 people were in housing without air conditioning. That estimate refers to that period, not a current population count.
For people confined by the state, heat is not a condition they can simply escape by choosing another home. Pitman concluded that the conditions and TDCJ’s heat response crossed the constitutional line. The ruling makes that finding the basis for a systemwide remedy, rather than leaving relief limited to a particular prison or individual.
The decision followed a trial held from March 30 through April 9, 2026. Pitman heard testimony from 33 witnesses and admitted more than 320 exhibits. This was a judge’s ruling after a trial, not a jury verdict.
The case had already passed through an earlier stage. In March 2025, Pitman found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim, but denied a request for temporary, systemwide air conditioning. He found that remedy was not appropriate at the preliminary stage. After the later trial, he ordered permanent relief.
How did women advocates shape a case that began with one man?
Bernie Tiede, an incarcerated man, filed the original lawsuit on Aug. 24, 2023. Advocacy organizations joined the case in 2024. By the final ruling, the plaintiffs were Lioness Justice Impacted Women’s Alliance, Texas Prison Community Advocates and Texas Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants—not a group of incarcerated women suing as individual plaintiffs.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
Lioness, founded in 2022 by and for people who have experienced incarceration in Texas, brought its members’ accounts of prison heat into the case. The organization’s role helped ensure that women’s experiences contributed to the evidence, even as the legal order applies across TDCJ prisons.
Tiede’s individual claims were dismissed in March 2026 after a TDCJ policy change placed him in an air-conditioned cell. The court allowed the organizations’ claims to continue. That distinction helped keep the case focused on conditions beyond one person’s housing: an individual move to a cool cell did not resolve the organizations’ systemwide claims.
The women advocates’ work was part of a wider effort to turn experiences inside prison into evidence the court could consider. As The 19th reported, Lioness communications director Marci Marie Simmons, who was formerly incarcerated in Texas, said: “We’ve been laughing and crying and celebrating, and also, you know, preparing because we know that this is just one step in the fight”
What dates will determine whether Texas meets the order?
Three dates mark the next steps: a legislative funding discussion, the first report to the court and the deadline for finishing installation.
- Monday, Sept. 28, 2026: TDCJ is scheduled to appear before the Legislative Budget Board about its funding request. For the 2028–29 budget, the agency requested $289 million for air-conditioning installation and separately requested $591.8 million for climate-controlled expansion dorms. A request is not the same as funding approved by lawmakers.
- March 22, 2027: TDCJ’s first progress report is due. The court’s six-month reporting requirement should make the agency’s schedule, spending requests and progress visible as the work proceeds.
- Dec. 31, 2029: The court’s deadline for air conditioning in every TDCJ prison.
Funding and the state’s response remain unsettled. TDCJ said it would appeal and disagreed with Pitman’s finding that it acted with deliberate indifference. As of Sunday, Sept. 27, the available reporting established the agency’s intention to appeal, but not that it had filed one.
The order addresses air conditioning and prison conditions; it does not close prisons, shorten sentences or reduce the number of people incarcerated. Whether its constitutional remedy is delivered on time will depend on the state’s plans, the funding lawmakers authorize and the progress TDCJ reports to the court.