The Delaware Court of Chancery has set a trial to examine whether state prison officials violate the Delaware Constitution by failing to decontaminate incarcerated people after they are sprayed with law‑enforcement grade pepper spray, a judge ruled Aug. 11.
Legal challenge seeks policy changes, not damages
The suit, filed in May by the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several people who say they were sprayed and denied timely cleaning, asks the court to require the Department of Correction to adopt and follow decontamination procedures. Rather than seeking money, the plaintiffs are pursuing injunctive relief and a change in institutional practice.
Attorneys for the inmates contend correctional officers routinely deploy high‑concentration oleoresin capsicum — commonly known as OC spray — and then leave people to suffer without adequate decontamination, in some instances for days. OC used by law enforcement is stronger than consumer pepper spray, and prisoners interviewed by advocates over several years have described long‑lasting pain, respiratory problems and other effects after exposure.
Judge declines immediate ban but orders trial
Vice Chancellor Travis Laster denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would have halted use of OC spray in state prisons until the Department of Correction demonstrated improved decontamination measures.
"If correction officers could not use OC, they would have to resort to the weapons of the past, like police batons, nightsticks, and truncheons,"
However, Laster’s ruling did not end the case. He directed the parties to prepare for a full trial in the coming months on whether the department's practices surrounding decontamination amount to cruel or inhuman treatment forbidden by the state constitution.
Scope of use and core dispute
The lawsuit does not seek to ban the use of OC spray outright. Instead, it focuses narrowly on what happens after a person is subdued: whether the state provides timely and effective measures to remove the chemical agent and relieve suffering. Court filings and advocacy materials say OC is used hundreds of times each year in Delaware's prisons.
State officials defended the need for OC as a tool to maintain order and officer safety in high‑risk situations. The court’s refusal to grant emergency injunctive relief reflects the judge’s view that correctional staff require such tools to manage volatile incidents, while the scheduled trial will address constitutional limits and required procedures.
Why the Court of Chancery?
Plaintiffs brought the action in Delaware’s Court of Chancery — a court traditionally associated with corporate and equity matters — because the remedy sought is equitable in nature: a change in policy and procedure rather than monetary damages. The Chancery Court has national renown for business litigation, but it also hears other equitable disputes under state law.
Potential outcomes and local impact
If the plaintiffs prevail, the court could order specific decontamination protocols, require training, or mandate oversight and reporting by the Department of Correction. Such a ruling would affect day‑to‑day operations across state correctional facilities and could spur similar litigation in other states.
Conversely, if the court upholds current practices, the department would retain discretion over when and how to remove OC from exposed individuals, subject to existing policies and oversight mechanisms.
- Filed: May (plaintiffs filed the suit in May)
- Ruling: Aug. 11, judge denied preliminary injunction but set trial
- Alleged practice: Leaving subdued prisoners to remain contaminated for extended periods
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Court | Delaware Court of Chancery |
| Judge | Vice Chancellor Travis Laster |
| Relief sought | Policy changes / injunctions requiring decontamination procedures |
What happens next
Court documents indicate the parties will now proceed to prepare for trial on the constitutionality of the department’s decontamination practices. The trial schedule and specific courtroom dates were not included in the initial ruling; court clerks and counsel will coordinate pretrial timelines.
Advocates said the case is groundbreaking in that it leverages a constitutional provision against cruel punishment to seek institutional reform rather than only financial compensation. The outcome could have implications for corrections policy across Delaware and beyond.
State corrections officials have previously said they use OC as one of several tools to maintain safety in prisons. The department did not immediately provide a public response to the Chancery Court’s latest order when contacted following the Aug. 11 decision.
