Hudson v. McMillian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hudson v. McMillian | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||||||
| Argued November 13, 1991 Decided February 25, 1992 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| The use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: O'Connor Joined by: Rehnquist, Stevens (Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C only), White, Kennedy, Souter Concurrence by: Blackmun (in the judgment of the court only) Concurrence/dissent by: Stevens (concurring in the judgment of the court) Dissent by: Thomas Joined by: Scalia |
||||||||||
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court decision where the Court on a 7-2 vote held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
Through the use of an oft-repeated quotation from appellate judge Frank Easterbrook, Clarence Thomas's dissent ensured the much-maligned Space: 1999 a place in the Supreme Court reports.
[edit] Opinion
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In the case, petitioner Hudson, a Louisiana prison inmate, testified that he suffered minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate as a result from a beating by respondent prison guards, McMillian and Woods, while he was handcuffed and shackled following an argument with McMillian, and that respondent Mezo, a supervisor on duty, alleged watched the beating. Hudson's injuries were "minor" and required no medical attention. Then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices White, Kennedy, and Souter, Stevens, Blackmun joined the majority opinion.
Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, with Thomas writing that the beating did not cause sufficient harm to meet the constitutional standard; however, he left open the option of a criminal charge or a tort claim, stating:
- In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment." In concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents.
Conceding some of the petitioners' arguments, Thomas cited a classic line from a Seventh Circuit decision, Williams v. Boles by Frank Easterbrook:
Many things - beating with a rubber truncheon, water torture, electric shock, incessant noise, reruns of Space: 1999 - may cause agony as they occur, yet leave no enduring injury. The state is not free to inflict such pains without cause just so long as it is careful to leave no marks.
