And I hope a lot of them get out. This law broke California financially. People who did dumb things three times cost us a LOT. So glad to see this decision. Sob. More work for the lawyers.

What a piece of crap law.

Johnson ruled that one clause of the statute is unconstitutional while leaving the rest in tact.

It only effects those where one of the strikes was based on that clause. Crime involving an actual assault with a weapon, the use of a weapon during a burglary, extortion; and drug offense which carry possibility of 10 years still count as a strike.

The ones who it does effect will have their sentences reviewed.

the question of the 'three strikes' provision of prisoner status law on the issue of limited appeal.

Supreme Court rules on 'three strikes' provision of prisoner status law

"The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Monday in Coleman v. Tollefson [SCOTUSblog materials] that a dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit that is still appealable does count as one of three allotted "strikes" that limits other suits by the prisoner. The "three-strike" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [text] bars an inmate from filing a new lawsuit over prison conditions after three prior lawsuits had failed on the grounds of lack of merit. The question was whether a dismissal on one of the statutorily enumerated grounds of the federal law in question counts as one of those three strikes. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that a dismissal counts as one of the three strikes, even if the dismissal is the subject of an ongoing appeal. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court affirmed:

We recognize that our interpretation of the statute may create a different risk: An erroneous trial court dismissal might wrongly deprive a prisoner of in forma pauperis status with respect to lawsuits filed after a dismissal but before its reversal on appeal. But that risk does not seem great.

The court concluded that the plain language of the statute dictated the result of the case."

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/05/supreme-court-rules-on-three-strikes-provision-of-prisoner-status-law.php

I thought the ruling was about the three strikes mandatory sentencing but it appears the Court ruled that the main intent of the "three strikes" law instituting mandatory sentences as constitutional in 2003, the case was Lockyer v. Andrade (2003).

I stand to be corrected on this and would be VERY happy if so.

STATE YEAR ADOPTED
Arkansas 1995
California 1994
Colorado 1994
Connecticut 1994
Florida 1995
Georgia 1994
Indiana 1994
Kansas 1994
Louisiana 1994
Maryland 1994
Montana 1995
Nevada 1995
New Jersey 1995
New Mexico 1994
North Carolina 1994
North Dakota 1995
Pennsylvania 1995
South Carolina 1995
Tennesee 1994
Utah 1995
Vermont 1995
Virginia 1994
Washington 1993
Wisconsin 1994

http://www.threestrikes.org/3strikestates.html