The Oyez Project: Due Process Issues - Prisoners' Rights Decisions

Baxter v. Palmigiano

No details yet.

Black v. Romano

No details yet.

Block v. Rutherford

No details yet.

Board Of Pardons v. Allen

No details yet.

Bounds v. Smith

No details yet.

Connecticut Board Of Pardons v. Dumschat

No details yet.

Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates

No details yet.

Hewitt v. Helms

No details yet.

Howe v. Smith

No details yet.

Hurtado v. United States

No details yet.

Kentucky Dept. Of Corrections v. Thompson

No details yet.

Lewis v. Casey

Did a federal trial judge err when ruling that Arizona prison officials unconstitutionally failed to provide inmates with adequate legal research facilities?

No. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the success of Casey's systemic challenge was dependent on the ability to show widespread actual injury, and the District Court's failure to identify anything more than isolated instances of actual injury rendered its finding of a systemic Bounds violation invalid. Justice Scalia said the court's 1977 ruling in Bounds v. Smith "does not guarantee [inmates] the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims."

Marshall v. United States

No details yet.

Mccarthy v. Bronson

No details yet.

Mcginnis v. Royster

No details yet.

Meachum v. Fano

No details yet.

Montanye v. Haymes

No details yet.

Moody v. Daggett

No details yet.

Morrissey v. Brewer

No details yet.

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard

Does an inmate have a protected life or liberty interest in clemency proceedings? Does the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process violate an inmate's Fifth Amendment rights?

No and no. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court unanimously held that Ohio had not violated the Woodard's privilege against compelled self-incrimination by giving him the option of voluntarily participating in a clemency interview without the benefit of counsel or a grant of immunity for any statements. In an 8-1 split, with Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting, the Court held that Ohio's clemency procedures do not violate due process. The eight-member majority was unable to agree on an opinion as to the extent of due process protections required in clemency proceedings.

Olim v. Wakinekona

No details yet.

Perry v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Ponte v. Real

No details yet.

Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital

No details yet.

Rufo, Sheriff Of Suffolk County v. Inmates Of Suffolk County Jail

No details yet.

Sandin, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility v. Conner

No details yet.

Sell v. United States

May the Federal Government administer antipsychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill criminal defendant in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial for serious, but nonviolent, crimes?

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the Constitution allows the Federal Government to administer antipsychotic drugs, even against the defendant's will, in limited circumstances. The Court reasoned that such conditions include if the treatment is medically appropriate, is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial's fairness, and, taking account of less intrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests. Finding that the District Court and Court of Appeals's findings did not satisfy these conditions, the Court vacated the appellate court's judgment. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case.

Superintendent v. Hill

No details yet.

United States v. Salerno

Did the Bail Reform Act violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

The Court held that the Act was constitutional because when the government's interest in protecting the community outweighs individual liberty, pre-trial detention can be "a potential solution to a pressing societal problem." The Act only applied to a specific list of serious offenses, placed heavy burdens on the government to prove that the arrestee posed significant threats to others, and did not prevent the accused from enjoying a speedy trial. The Court also dismissed Salerno's argument that the Act violated the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Vitek v. Jones

No details yet.

Washington v. Harper

No details yet.

Wilkinson v. Austin

Did the placement policies for Ohio's highest security prison violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the procedures by which the New Policy classified prisoners for placement at the facility provided sufficient protection to comply with the due process clause. The Court reasoned that procedural protections afforded to prisoners were necessarily limited, and that the New Policy sufficiently minimized risk of erroneous placement. The Court also cited Ohio's interests in prison security against gangs and in preserving scarce resources.

Wolff v. Mcdonnell

No details yet.

Young v. Harper

Is Oklahoma's Preparole Conditional Supervision Program sufficiently like parole that participants are entitled to procedural protections, such as the due process safeguards set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled that Oklahoma's Preparole Conditional Supervision Program, as it existed when Leroy L. Young was released, was equivalent to parole and therefore he was entitle to procedural due process safeguards.