Hudson v. McMillian

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Hudson v. McMillian
ArgueDate=November 13
ArgueYear=1991
DecideDate=February 25
DecideYear=1992
FullName=Hudson v. McMillian
USVol=503
USPage=1
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=929 F.2d 1014 (CA 5 1990), reversed.
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.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Majority=O'Connor
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Stevens (Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C only), White, Kennedy, Souter
Concurrence=Blackmun (in the judgment of the court only)
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens (concurring in the judgment of the court)
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Thomas
JoinDissent=Scalia
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"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.

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 "" - 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.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 503

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=503&page=1 Full text of case from Findlaw.com]
* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1887/ Summary of case from OYEZ]