October Term 2004 · Docket 04-495

Does Ohio's supermax placement process satisfy due process?

Prisoners challenge Ohio's transfer procedures to its supermax facility.

Official caption
Wilkinson v. Austin
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the sides that brought the case argued the state failed to provide notice.

    the opposing sides argued Ohio's procedures are sufficient for due process.

    advocates debated whether a liberty interest exists in this context.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Ohio moved inmates to its supermax prison. The state claims its process meets due process. the sides that brought the case argue the state failed to provide notice.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 30, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to find a liberty interest exists.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold Ohio's current procedures.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the state failed to provide adequate notice.

the opposing sides argue Ohio's procedures satisfy due process requirements.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice O'Connor asked whether a liberty interest exists.

Justice Scalia asked where the liberty interest lies.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the procedural rights of inmates. It determines what notice states must provide. It shapes the scope of due process in prisons.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON