The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, January 16, 1979
Decision: Monday, May 14, 1979
Issues: Due Process, Prisoners' Rights

Advocates

Phylis Skloot Bamberger (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility. Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns amounted to punishment before conviction.

Question

Do certain conditions of confinement violate the individual liberty, due process, and privacy of pretrial detainees as protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court found that that the conditions of confinement did not infringe upon a pretrial detainee's rights. Justice Rehnquist's opinion argued that the issue of prison management is ripe with "judgment calls" which rest outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary. As long as administrative practices are implemented in the genuine interest of "safeguarding institutional security" then they do not warrant judicial scrutiny and are consistent with the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Bell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the majority
Burger
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a regular concurrence
Powell
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1829/>
(last visited ).