We'll hear argument next in case 23, 1324, Pertou v. Richards.

Ms. Sherman.

Mr. Chief Justice, I may have pleased the Court,

exhaustion is a centerpiece of Congress's reforms under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Yet even with this invigorated exhaustion requirement,

prisoner lawsuits still account for an outsized share of filings in federal

district courts. A rule that requires a jury trial on intertwined exhaustion issue would increase

this burden while incentivizing non-exhaustion and undermining the goals and structure of the PLRA.

Respondent would have this court cast aside the PLRA's goals and structure merely because

exhaustion is an affirmative defense.

Focusing on this court's holding in Jones v. Spock, he contends that there's no principled

reason for treating PLRA exhaustion differently than other affirmative defenses that are

routinely sent to juries

when there are facts intertwined with the merits.

Jones does not stand for this broad proposition.

It held only that prisoners need not plead exhaustion.

And there is a principled reason for treating PLRA exhaustion differently than other

affirmative defenses. It is a mandatory

prerequisite to suit, so its intended benefits would be entirely undercut by merits

discovery and a trial before its resolution. PLRA exhaustion must be resolved by a judge at the

early stages of litigation.

Contrary to the Sixth Circuit, this does not run afoul of the Seventh Amendment, even when there are intertwined facts.

...