Wilkinson v. Austin
- Decided
- June 13, 2005
- Docket
- 04-495
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,479 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that transfer to “supermax” facility may implicate federally protected liberty interest if conditions there impose an “atypical and significant hardship” — Jay Vermillion v. Mark Levenhagen (2015)
- holding that informal, nonadversary procedures were adequate to safeguard liberty interest inmates had in not being assigned to supermax facility — Bolden v. Doe (In re Adoption of J.S.) (2014)
- holding that it could reach the second step — what process is due — only if it finds that a protected interest was at stake — Immaculate Heart Central School v. New York State Public High School Athletic Ass'n (2011)
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
[*213] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the process by which Ohio classifies prisoners for placement at its highest security prison, known as a “Supermax” facility. Supermax facilities are maximum-security prisons with highly restrictive conditions, designed to segregate the most dangerous prisoners from the general prison population. We must consider what process the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires Ohio to afford to inmates before assigning them to Supermax. We hold that the procedures Ohio has adopted provide sufficient procedural protection to comply with due process requirements.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005)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.