The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled unanimously on July 3 that the state and its officials cannot claim sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990, a decision that opens the door for residents to sue state agencies for discrimination.
The 5-0 ruling, written by Associate Justice Erin Lynch Prata, resolves a legal question that has shielded the state from civil rights damages claims for decades. The court found that discrimination claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, known as RICRA, count as "actions of tort" under the State Tort Claims Act — the 1970 law in which the General Assembly broadly waived the state's immunity from tort lawsuits. Because RICRA claims now fall under that existing waiver, the state can be sued for civil rights violations even though the 1990 civil rights law never explicitly said so.
The case, Parente v. Lefebvre, began in 2016 when ACI inmates Luther C. Parente and Eric L. Stewart sued the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Both men entered custody with preexisting ankle injuries — Parente had fractured both ankles jumping from a second-story window while evading arrest, and Stewart had sprained his ankle playing basketball. According to their federal lawsuit, corrections staff denied them elevator access, forced them to climb metal staircases multiple times a day, and refused to provide elevation pillows despite medical discharge instructions to keep their feet elevated. They alleged the treatment violated RICRA's disability discrimination protections. The Supreme Court's ruling does not decide whether that mistreatment actually occurred — only that the state cannot use immunity to block the lawsuit from proceeding.
A federal district judge rejected the state's immunity defense in 2023, and the state appealed. Rather than rule on Rhode Island law itself, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified the underlying state-law question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court in December 2024. The case now returns to the First Circuit, which must apply the ruling before the underlying discrimination claims can move toward trial.
Special Assistant Attorney General James J. Arguin argued for the state that the General Assembly never "expressly and unmistakably" waived immunity when it passed RICRA, pointing to failed 2025 and 2026 bills seeking to add such a waiver as evidence lawmakers believed immunity was still intact. Associate Justice William P. Robinson III wrote a brief concurrence agreeing that the court's own precedent compelled the outcome, but said he did so "without enthusiasm."
Following the ruling, Timothy Rondeau, spokesperson for Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement that the office respects the decision but is "prepared to continue our case in federal court," characterizing the dispute as centered on Eleventh Amendment protections against private lawsuits in federal court rather than a substantive civil rights question. ACLU of Rhode Island cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger, who co-authored an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, said in a statement that she hopes the Attorney General's office will now "vigorously enforce" civil rights protections "rather than urging the court to deny its existence."
While the ruling opens the state to lawsuits, it also routes those claims through the State Tort Claims Act's damages cap, which limits state liability in tort cases to $100,000 per claimant under state law.
The ruling also resolves a question that had stalled legislation at the State House. In letters dated March 4 and May 5 to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee chairs, Governor Daniel J. McKee's administration urged lawmakers to hold the Rhode Island Civil Rights Enforcement Act — a broader bill that would have explicitly waived state immunity for civil rights and constitutional violations — until the Supreme Court ruled in Parente, writing that the outcome "may render all or parts of this Act unnecessary." Both the House and Senate versions of that bill were held for further study during the 2026 session.
The broader bill would have gone further than the court's ruling, covering direct violations of the Rhode Island Constitution that RICRA does not address. Whether lawmakers revive that legislation, and whether individual corrections officers named in lawsuits will still attempt to claim other narrower immunities, remain open questions as the case returns to federal court.