Amendment 14 — Prisoners And Procedural Due Process

prev | next

Fourteenth Amendment , Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In an 1871 case, the Supreme Court embraced a narrow view of prisoners’ due process rights, stating that a prisoner “has, as a consequence of his crime, not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords to him. He is for the time being the slave of the state.” [1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn1amd14 " Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 796 (1871). ") However, that view is not currently the law.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn2amd14 " Cf. In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242 (1894). ") In 1948, the Court declared that “[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights,” suggesting that some rights and privileges may remain.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn3amd14 " Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948). ") Subsequent cases make clear that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses apply to prisoners to some extent.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn4amd14 " “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555–56 (1974). ")

The Court described its role in protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners in a 1972 case:

Federal courts sit not to supervise prisons but to enforce the constitutional rights of all ‘persons,’ which include prisoners. We are not unmindful that prison officials must be accorded latitude in the administration of prison affairs, and that prisoners necessarily are subject to appropriate rules and regulations. But persons in prison, like other individuals, have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn5amd14 " Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972). See also Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404–05 (1974) (invalidating state prison mail censorship regulations). ")

While the Court has affirmed that federal courts have the responsibility to scrutinize prison practices alleged to violate the Constitution, concerns of federalism and judicial restraint have caused the Court to emphasize the necessity of deference to the judgments of prison officials and others responsible for administering such systems.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn6amd14 " Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545–548, 551, 555, 562 (1979) (federal prison); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 351–352 (1981). ")

Aside from challenges to conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees,[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn7amd14 " See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535–40. Persons not yet convicted of a crime may be detained by the government upon the appropriate determination of probable cause, and the government is entitled to “employ devices that are calculated to effectuate [a] detention.” Id. at 537. Nonetheless, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from being subject to conditions that amount to punishment. See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538, 561. More recently, the Court clarified the standard by which the due process rights of pretrial detainees are adjudged with respect to excessive force claims. Specifically, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the Court held that, in order for a pretrial detainee to prove an excessive force claim in violation of his due process rights, a plaintiff must show that an officer’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, depending on the facts and circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, aligning the due process excessive force analysis with the standard for excessive force claims brought under the Fourth Amendment. 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473–74 (2015); cf. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989) (holding that a “free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force . . . [is] properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard” ). Liability for actions taken by the government in the context of a pretrial detainee due process lawsuit does not, therefore, turn on whether a particular officer subjectively knew that the conduct being taken was unreasonable. See Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2470. ") the Court has normally analyzed constitutional challenges to general prison conditions under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment ,[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn8amd14 " See . ") while challenges to particular incidents and practices proceed under the Due Process Clause[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn9amd14 " E.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (prison inmate has liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs). ") or other provisions such as the First Amendment ’s speech and religion clauses.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn10amd14 " E.g., Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974); Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977). On religious practices and ceremonies, see Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). ") Prior to formulating its current approach, the Court recognized several rights of prisoners. The Court has held that prisoners have the right to petition for redress of grievances, which includes access to the courts for purposes of presenting their complaints,[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn11amd14 " Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941); White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (1945). Prisoners must have reasonable access to a law library or to persons trained in the law. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). Establishing a right of access to law materials, however, requires an individualized demonstration of an inmate having been hindered in efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (no requirement that the state “enable [a] prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively” ). ") and to bring actions in federal courts to recover for damages wrongfully caused by prison administrators.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn12amd14 " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). ") They also have a right, circumscribed by legitimate prison administration considerations, to fair and regular treatment during their incarceration. Prisoners have a right to be free of racial segregation in prisons, except for the necessities of prison security and discipline.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn13amd14 " Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968). There was some question as to the standard to be applied to racial discrimination in prisons after Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations upheld if “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” ). In Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), however, the Court held that discriminatory prison regulations would continue to be evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard, which requires that regulations be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Id. at 509–13 (striking down a requirement that new or transferred prisoners at the reception area of a correctional facility be assigned a cellmate of the same race for up to sixty days before they are given a regular housing assignment). ")

In Turner v. Safley, the Court announced a general standard for measuring prisoners’ claims of deprivation of constitutional rights: “[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” [14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn14amd14 " 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (upholding a Missouri rule barring inmate-to-inmate correspondence, but striking down a prohibition on inmate marriages absent compelling reason such as pregnancy or birth of a child). See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (upholding restrictions on prison visitation by unrelated children or children over which a prisoner’s parental rights have been terminated and visitation where a prisoner has violated rules against substance abuse). ") The Court indicated that several considerations are appropriate in determining the reasonableness of a prison regulation. First, there must be a rational relation to a legitimate, content-neutral objective, such as prison security. Availability of other avenues for exercise of an inmate’s right supports a finding of reasonableness.[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn15amd14 " For instance, limiting who may visit prisoners is ameliorated by the ability of prisoners to communicate through other visitors, by letter, or by phone. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. at 135. ") A regulation is also more likely to be deemed reasonable if accommodation would have a negative effect on the liberty or safety of guards, other inmates,[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn16amd14 " 482 U.S. at 90, 92. ") or visitors.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/prisoners-and-procedural-due-process#fn17amd14 "<span class="fn_re