Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the court in No. 01-309 Hope against Pelzer will be announced by Justice Stevens.
Argument of Justice Stevens
Mr. Stevens: In 1995 Alabama was the only State that followed the practice of chaining prison inmates to one another in work squads. It was also the only State that handcuffed prisoners to hitching posts to punish them for disrupting the work of chain games.
The petitioner in this case was punished in this way on two occasions, once for fighting with another prisoner and the second time for an altercation with the guard.
The first occasion, the handcuff into the hitching post lasted for only about two hours because the petitioner was released when the guard decided that the other prisoner had started the fight.
On the second occasion he was handcuff to the post in an uncomfortable standing position for seven hours.
During this period he was given water only once or twice and was denied bathroom breaks.
Petitioner filed an action against three guards alleging that the use of the hitching post was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth amendment.
The Court of Appeals held that the practice was unconstitutional but that the guards were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable rule of federal law had not been set forth in earlier cases involving materially similar facts.
We granted certiorari to review the court’s holding on the qualified immunity issue.
For reason stated in an opinion filed with Clerk, we conclude that the Court of Appeals applied an incorrect standard and that earlier decisions did give respondents a fair warning that the use of the hitching post for punitive was unconstitutional.
Accordingly we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
Justice Thomas has filed a dissenting opinion that is joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia.
