Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson

Supreme Court of United States
490 U.S. 454 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest for prisoners under the Fourteenth Amendment only when its regulations use explicitly mandatory language in connection with specific substantive predicates that limit official discretion; the mere existence of procedural guidelines is insufficient.

Facts:

Kentucky prison officials issued policies and procedures governing inmate visitation.
A detailed memorandum for the Kentucky State Reformatory stated that while staff 'reserves the right to allow or disallow visits,' it was policy 'to respect the right of inmates to have visits.'
The regulations included a nonexhaustive list of reasons why a visitor 'may be excluded,' such as posing a security threat or being under the influence of drugs.
The mother of one inmate was denied visitation for six months because she brought a person to the reformatory who had previously been barred.
Another inmate’s mother and woman friend were denied visitation for a limited time after the inmate was found with contraband following their visit.
In both instances, prison officials suspended the visitation privileges without providing a hearing.
The inmates in question were not prevented from receiving other visitors during these suspension periods.

Procedural Posture:

A class of inmates filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, arguing that the suspension of visitation privileges without a hearing violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court found that the prison's policies created a liberty interest in visitation and ordered the prison to develop minimal due process procedures.
The prison officials appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the regulations used sufficiently mandatory language to create a protected liberty interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Sixth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do Kentucky's prison regulations and policies regarding visitation create a liberty interest for inmates in receiving certain visitors that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Blackmun

No. Kentucky's prison regulations do not create a protected liberty interest in visitation because they lack the requisite mandatory language to place substantive limitations on the discretion of prison officials. A state-created liberty interest arises only when regulations contain both 'substantive predicates' to guide official decisions and 'explicitly mandatory language' directing a specific outcome if those predicates are met. While Kentucky's regulations provide substantive predicates by listing reasons for exclusion, they do not mandate a particular outcome. The regulations use permissive language, stating a visitor 'may be excluded,' and include a broad caveat that 'administrative staff reserves the right to allow or disallow visits.' This discretionary language fails to create a legitimate claim of entitlement for the inmates, and therefore, no liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause is established.

Dissenting - Justice Marshall

Yes. A liberty interest exists both because it is inherent in the Due Process Clause and because it is created by the state's regulations. The ability to maintain relationships with family and friends through visitation is a fundamental aspect of human dignity that constitutes a retained liberty interest protected from arbitrary government deprivation. Furthermore, the Kentucky regulations, when viewed as a whole, do create a protected liberty interest. The majority improperly focuses on a single discretionary phrase while ignoring the extensive, detailed, and mandatory language ('will be,' 'is allowed') that governs nearly every aspect of visitation. These detailed rules create a legitimate expectation that visits will be allowed unless one of the enumerated reasons for denial exists, which is sufficient to establish a liberty interest requiring due process protection.

Concurring - Justice Kennedy

No. While concurring with the Court's opinion, it is important to note its limited scope. The holding addresses only the denial of access to particular visitors under these specific regulations. The opinion does not foreclose the possibility that a broader prison regulation, such as one permanently forbidding all visits to some or all prisoners, could implicate the protections of the Due Process Clause in a more significant way than the individualized restrictions at issue here.

Analysis:

This case significantly narrows the scope of state-created liberty interests for prisoners. By establishing a strict, two-part test requiring both 'substantive predicates' and 'explicitly mandatory language,' the Court gave prison administrators a clear formula for drafting regulations that avoid triggering due process requirements. This decision makes it far more difficult for inmates to succeed on procedural due process claims based on prison rules, shifting the legal landscape in favor of institutional discretion and administrative efficiency over inmate procedural rights concerning the conditions of their confinement.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson (1989)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature