Stanley, et al. v. Ivey, et al., [Ms. SC-2025-0058, Sept. 5, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). In a per curiam plurality opinion, the Court (Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur; Mendheim, J., concurs specially; Shaw, J., dissents, which Stewart, C.J., and McCool, J., join; Lewis, J., recuses) transfers to the Court of Civil Appeals an appeal from the Montgomery Circuit Court’s judgment dismissing an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief filed by prisoners challenging an Administrative Regulation issued by the Alabama Department of Corrections and Executive Order 725 issued by Governor Ivey. The prisoners argued the regulation and executive order, which imposed sanctions on prisoners who refuse work assignments, violate Art. I, § 32of the Alabama Constitution providing “That no form of slavery shall exist in this state; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude.” Ms. **4-5.
The prisoners appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals and the court transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court. The court’s transfer order stated “‘although the [prisoners’] complaint seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief, the ‘amount involved’ in this case, which seeks to vindicate the [prisoners’] constitutional rights, exceeds $50,000…’” Ms. **9-10. However, the main opinion explains “if a monetary value is to be placed on the deprivation of a constitutional right, it must be for an actual injury, not based on a “‘subjective perception of the importance of constitutional rights as an abstract matter.’” Ms. *15, quoting Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308 (1986). In transferring the appeal, the Court notes “the prisoners appealed a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing their complaint to the Court of Civil Appeals. In doing so, the prisoners implicitly indicated that the ‘amount involved’ in this case does not exceed $50,000. Nothing in the record on appeal indicates that the ‘amount involved’ clearly exceeds $50,000 for the purposes of § 12-3-10 [Ala. Code 1975].” Ms. *17.