Millions of Americans live without air conditioning. Estimates put that number as high as 35 million. And, as Professor Nambi Ndugga and his colleagues report, “Asian, Black, and Hispanic- led households are more likely to report not having an air conditioning unit in their home compared to white households and keeping their homes at unsafe or unhealthy temperatures.”Such conditions are especially prevalent in American prisons, particularly in Deep South states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. In those prisons, summertime temperatures can routinely reach triple digits.

A report from the Prison Policy Institute notes that prisons “are mostly built from heat-retaining materials, which can increase internal prison temperatures. Because of this, the temperatures inside prisons can often exceed outdoor temperatures.”

“Moreover,” it continues, citing a report in Prison Legal News, “‘people outside of prison who experience extreme heat have options that prisoners often lack — they can take a cool shower, drink cold water, move into the shade, or go to a place that is air conditioned. For prisoners, those options are generally unavailable.’”On Sept. 22, Robert Pitman, a federal district judge in Texas, ruled that the failure to provide cooling in the Lone Star State’s prisons constituted a form of cruel and unusual punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution. He was right to do so, and his opinion should be a model for judges in other states.

Some might think that Pitman must be an out-of-control judicial activist, more sympathetic to the plight of hardened criminals than ordinary Americans. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Pitman was following long-established judicial precedents that impose special obligations on the government when it takes someone into its custody. Even the conservative former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist recognized that “in certain limited circumstances, the Constitution imposes upon the State affirmative duties of care and protection with respect to particular individuals.”Prisoners, Rehnquist noted, were included among the people to whom such a duty of care is owed.

Although judges have long recognized that prisons don’t have to be comfortable places, they have also recognized that they cannot be unhealthy ones. Some judges have said that “prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those necessarily lost as an incident of confinement.”

Prisons impinge on the rights of inmates who are forced to live in the extreme heat of a Deep South summer, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. “The lack of air conditioning in Southern prisons creates unsafe — even lethal — conditions. Prolonged exposure to extreme heat can cause dehydration and heat stroke, both of which can be fatal. It can also affect people’s kidneys, liver, heart, brain, and lungs, which can lead to renal failure, heart attack, and stroke.”

As Pitman put it, “inmates in Texas prisons are suffering — and in some cases dying. … These,” he added — of the condition in prisons when the state reaches triple-digit heat index readings — “are not humane conditions.”

The judge faulted state officials for not responding “reasonably to address extreme heat in Texas’s un-air-conditioned prisons…” and for “fail[ing] to meaningfully investigate and document prison temperatures and their effects, underrepresenting the scope of the problem.”Pitman found that “even where heat conditions do not result in immediate injuries or death, the heat in Texas prisons creates degrading, inhumane conditions and causes severe suffering.”That is familiar language in cases on the meaning of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

He also points out that Texas takes better care of its farm animals than its prisoners, spending “millions of dollars to ensure that poultry are housed in safe temperatures. … These protections do not exist in inmate housing facilities.”Pitman’s decision, if it is upheld on appeal, will not be an easy or cheap one for Texas to implement. Estimates of the cost run in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion.

Decisions protecting the rights of prisoners are seldom popular with people who are asked to foot the bill, or who think that the suffering of prisoners is the price they pay for the suffering they impose on others. That is why it is as important as it has ever been for judges to do what Pitman did.

Air conditioning in Texas prisons is hardly a sign that anyone is soft on crime. It is, instead, a testament to our commitment to the dignity and worth of everyone — even those whose crimes justify their incarceration.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.