October Term 2014 · Docket 14-6368
Does a pretrial detainee need to prove officer intent to win an excessive force claim?
The dispute centers on whether a pretrial detainee must prove an officer acted with subjective intent to harm when using excessive force.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Ward argued the core liberty interest is freedom from unjustified bodily restraint.
Mr. Clement argued the Court should adopt the subjective test from prior case law.
Justice Kennedy questioned the distinction between discipline and punishment for detainees.
Justice Scalia asked whether the claim relies on substantive due process.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-14
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if the Fourteenth Amendment requires a subjective intent standard for pretrial detainees. This differs from the Eighth Amendment standard for convicted prisoners. The lower court applied the subjective test. the side that brought the case seeks an objective standard. the opposing side defends the subjective test.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 27, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 19-21
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to adopt an objective standard for excessive force claims.
the opposing side wants the Court to keep the subjective intent standard for these claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the core liberty interest is freedom from unjustified bodily harm.
the opposing side argues the Court should adopt the subjective test from prior case law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if discipline and punishment differ for pretrial detainees.
Justice Scalia asked if the claim relies on substantive due process rather than the Eighth Amendment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-14
Why it matters
The standard determines how courts evaluate police force against unconvicted people. It affects the rights of all pretrial detainees. It shapes the balance between public safety and individual liberty.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 48-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-22 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 52-4 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 52-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-14
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 26-50 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 26-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 50-17 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 50-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.