Helling v. McKinney

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that imprisoned people do not need to be actively experiencing injuries from their confinement conditions before challenging them as cruel and unusual punishment.^[1]

Helling v. McKinney
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 13, 1993 Decided June 18, 1993
Full case name	Donald L. Helling, et al., Petitioners v. William McKinney.
Citations	509 U.S. 25 (more) 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	959 F. 2d 853 (CA9 1992)
Holding
Imprisoned people do not need to be actively experiencing injuries from their confinement conditions before challenging them as cruel and unusual punishment.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority	White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter
Dissent	Thomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
Amendment VIII

Description

In this case, an imprisoned person alleged that prison officials had acted with "deliberate indifference" to the potential negative health effects of environmental tobacco smoke by allowing smoking in the prison. The court decided in his favor, saying he had stated a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rejected the argument by the prison officials that the "deliberate indifference" standard, which the Court had originally articulated in Estelle v. Gamble, only applied to the current health needs of prisoners, rather than risks to their future health.^[2]