PART III: identifying rule of law in cases

Ex parte Hull (1941)

The Supreme Court held that no state or its officers could legally interfere with a prisoner’s right to apply to a federal court for writs of habeas corpus.

Holt v. Sarver (1969)

conditions of incarceration in a prison system can be so inhumane and degrading that they violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

• conditions of a prison in arkansas was so very inhumane and degrading that it vioalted the 8th amendement.

Turner v. Safley (1987)

The Court agreed with a rule that banned inmates from writing to each other between different prisons. It said prisons can limit inmate rights if the rule helps keep things safe and secure. The Court used the rational basis test, which means the rule is okay as long as it makes sense for prison safety.

Brown v. Plata (2011)

• U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in California prisons and the resulting poor healthcare violated the Constitution.

• The court said that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) had to release some inmates because overcrowding led to serious health issues and at least one preventable inmate death each week.

• The court also noted that CDCR had failed to follow previous orders to reduce overcrowding.

Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973)

When a probationer faces revocation of probation, they have the right to a hearing with legal protections. Extended the rights under Morrissey (parole revocation) to offenders to probation as well

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)

The Court said that if a prisoner faces serious punishment, like losing good behavior time or changing their housing, the process must protect their rights by following certain rules to ensure fairness.

Bell v. Wolfish (1979)

The Court said that prison officials need to make sure the prison is safe and secure. Sometimes, this means restricting the rights of prisoners to maintain order and prevent problems like escapes or unauthorized people entering.

Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976)

the court said that prison disciplinary hearings are not the same as criminal trials. So, inmates don’t have the right to a lawyer or to question witnesses like they would in a trial. If an inmate chooses to stay silent, the hearing can use that against them. The hearings just need to be fair, but they’re not as formal as regular court trials.

Cooper v. Pate (1964)

The Supreme Court ruled that state prison inmates could sue state officials in federal courts under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

The Court ruled that prison officials aren't responsible for an inmate's injury caused by another inmate unless the official knew about the risk of harm and ignored it. The key point is that officials aren't held liable just because a "reasonable person" would have acted differently.