Kingsley v. Hendrickson (14-6368)

argument 14-6368

Kingsley v. Hendrickson

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional liberty interest does the Court say is at stake for restrained detainees?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case fourteen sixty three sixty eight, Kingsley versus Hendrickson uh Ms. Ward?

Julie R. Ward 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The core of the liberty interest protected by due process is the right to be free from unjustified bodily restraint and harm. It's hard to imagine anything more inconsistent with these core rights than the use of a weapon on a restrained detainee. And that is why respondents urge this court to import A subjective intent element that doesn't relate to due process but is instead drawn from the test for violation of a convicted prisoner's eighth amendment rights. Respondents candidly admit that they favor this test. Because it better insulates guards from liability. But that is no reason to ignore meaningful constitutional distinctions between those who have been convicted and those who have not.

Unknown 0:53

of the detainee. Why isn't that just a facet? of the use of excessive force. I think that's how the district court treated it.

Julie R. Ward 1:04

The the safety of the D T new was the stated objective for the use of the force in in this case. And that is a legitimate interest. But the determination of whether the the force itself was excessive is um based on the Bell test for legitimate purpose. uh legitimate um chronological objective. So then the the test is objectively then Веде о но The use of force was excessive to the state of state in need and the fourth amendment test provides A a a good um familiar workable standard that can be used to

Unknown 1:40

you mentioned the fourth amendment now, but as I understand it, the complaint just alleged a due process violation. It didn't And It didn't refer to the Fourth Amendment.

Julie R. Ward 1:53

That's correct, Your Honor. And And the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process um test as articulated in Bell does provide the clearest application by the court. of the rights of detainees in the prison context. And the court has stated that Bell does apply to the excessive force claims of pretrial detainees, and it makes perfect sense because like a prison policy that goes too far, it's easy to see how a use of force can be administered as punishment.

Unknown 2:19

So suppose you have a detainee being held in a prison population. Uh Uh is is your point that the the prisoners can be punished but the detainee cannot be?

Julie R. Ward 2:31

That's correct.

Unknown 2:35

Prisoners are misbehaving, they're unruly. Uh they're yelling and throwing things at the guards and the guards say, All right, lock down for twenty four hours, you can't go to the mess hall. The detainee raises his hand and says, Oh, excuse me, I'm a detainee? I I have a different standard. Is is that your is that what has to happen here?

Julie R. Ward 2:53

Yes. The but the the problem with the hypothetical is that the that's a legitimate penal objective. So under either test, neither the punishment is the same.

Unknown 3:05

uh for d simply not a be in order to maintain discipline within the prison population. You can be deprived of your exercise or your right to go to the mess halls. So you can quote punish for that purpose, even if it's a pretrial detainee.

Julie R. Ward 3:20

If it's a pretrial detainee, you you can discipline for um to enforce legitimate objectives. If it's a convicted prisoner, even harsh convictions. You use

Unknown 3:29

the word discipline, I use the word punish. Are they the same?

Julie R. Ward 3:32

They're not the same. Punishment is the end result of application of the Bell Test. Discipline is um what happens to you if you've fail to follow the rules.

Unknown 3:43

And it doesn't matter if the if the punisher, so to speak, is simply an individual uh guard at the prison. versus the the state, which has run a prison that that it knows has these cruel guards. Uh it doesn't matter. the the the tortification of the due process clause, right?

Julie R. Ward 4:06

Right. It it it doesn't matter and in fact guards are probably entitled to even less deference than prison administrators who are making policy for the court. In footnote thirty eight of Bell, the Court acknowledged that or suggested that individual instances of abusive practices might be Um It's a

Unknown 4:25

substantive due process, you're arguing, right? Not procedural due process.