Bell v. Wolfish
- Decided
- May 14, 1979
- Docket
- 77-1829
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 11,438 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Mann v. Reynolds
What later courts said
- holding that, under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to conviction — Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles (2016)
- concluding that body cavity searches of prisoners were justified to guard against "smuggling of money drugs, weapons, and other contraband" — Fuller v. Jewelry (1991)
- concluding that body cavity searches of prisoners were justified to guard against “smuggling of money drugs, weapons, and other contraband” — Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry (1991)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*523] Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Over the past five Terms, this Court has in several decisions considered constitutional challenges to prison conditions or practices by convicted prisoners.[1] This case requires us to examine the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees — those persons who have been charged with a crime but who have not yet been tried on the charge. The parties concede that to ensure their presence at trial, these persons legitimately may be incarcerated by the Government prior to a determination of their guilt or innocence, infra, at 533-535, and n. 15; see 18 U. S. C. §§ 3146, 3148, and it is the scope of their rights during this period of confinement prior to trial that is the primary focus of this case.
This lawsuit was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to challenge numerous conditions of confinement and practices at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees. The District Court, in the words of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, “intervened broadly into almost every facet of the institution” and enjoined no fewer than 20 MCC practices on constitutional and statutory grounds. The Court ' of Appeals largely affirmed the District Court’s constitutional rulings and in the process held that under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, pretrial detainees may “be subjected to only those 'restrictions and privations’ which 'inhere in their confinement itself or which are justified by [*524] compelling necessities of jail administration.’ ” Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F. 2d 118, 124 (1978), quoting Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F. 2d 333, 336 (CA2 1974). We granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional questions raised by these decisions and to resolve an apparent conflict among the Circuits.[2] 439 U. S. 816 (1978). We now reverse.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.