Litigious prisoners who bring three or more unsuccessful lawsuits will generally have to pay their own filing fees for any new actions, regardless of whether they lost their prior lawsuits on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court unanimously ruled against Colorado prisoner Arthur Lomax and adopted a broader view of the 1995 Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule, which bars certain prisoners from bringing new cases "in forma pauperis," or exempt from fees, if they've already lost three or more previous lawsuits.

Under the three-strike rule, a prisoner receives a strike for each action that is dismissed for failing to state a claim. Lomax, however, argued that rule only applies to lawsuits that a judge dismisses with prejudice; prisoners shouldn't get a strike for prior lawsuits like his that were dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim.

In a seven-page opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court rejected that argument.

"This case begins, and pretty much ends, with the text of Section 1915(g)," Justice Kagan said, referring to the three-strikes provision. 

"Under that provision, a prisoner accrues a strike for any action 'dismissed on the ground[] that it ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,'" she explained. "That broad language covers all such dismissals: It applies to those issued both with and without prejudice to a plaintiff 's ability to reassert his claim in a later action."

To accept Lomax's argument, the court would have to read the word "dismissed" as "dismissed with prejudice," Justice Kagan said. "But this court may not narrow a provision's reach by inserting words Congress chose to omit," she added.

Lomax filed his latest lawsuit against prison officials after being expelled from the prison's sex-offender treatment program. He asked the court for in forma pauperis status to be exempt from a $400 filing fee. The district court rejected the motion because of his three unsuccessful lawsuits, a decision upheld on appeal by the Tenth Circuit. Disagreeing with Lomax's argument, the Tenth Circuit said it didn't matter that those previous cases were dismissed without prejudice; under the circuit's precedents, they still counted as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday, with Justice Kagan's opinion acknowledging that the circuits "have long divided" over whether a case needed to be dismissed with prejudice to qualify as a strike under the PLRA.

Justice Kagan said that the 1995 law was meant "to cabin not only abusive but also simply meritless prisoner suits."

"In line with our duty to call balls and strikes, we granted certiorari to resolve the split, and we now affirm," she said.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's longstanding approach to this question," Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson said in a statement.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which appeared as an amicus in the case supporting Colorado, also welcomed the court's ruling. "We are pleased that the Court unanimously adopted the plain-text arguments and reasoning advanced by the Department," said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, who represented the department at oral arguments.

Counsel for Lomax could not be reached Monday for comment.

Lomax is represented by Brian T. Burgess of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Colorado is represented by Colorado Solicitor General Eric R. Olson.

The Department of Justice is represented by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

The case is Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez et al., case number 18-8369, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

--Editing by Jack Karp.

Update: This story has been updated with a statement from the Colorado solicitor general and the U.S. deputy attorney general.