Helling v. McKinney
United States Supreme Court
509 U.S. 25 (1993)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
William McKinney (plaintiff) was an inmate in the Nevada prison system. McKinney was assigned to a prison cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. McKinney was later transferred to another prison in which his cellmate was not a smoker. McKinney filed a civil-rights complaint against the director of the prison and other prison officials (the prison officials) (defendants), alleging that the health problems that he was suffering from were a result of sharing a prison cell with a smoker. McKinney claimed that the circumstances of his imprisonment constituted constitutionally impermissible cruel and unusual punishment and sought damages. A magistrate judge ruled that McKinney did not have a constitutional right to be free from cigarette smoking and granted judgment for the prison officials. The court of appeals held that McKinney had stated a valid cause of action under the Eighth Amendment and that the magistrate had erred in granting judgment to the prison officials without affording McKinney the opportunity to prove that his exposure to smoking constituted an unreasonable danger to McKinney’s future health. The prison officials appealed, arguing that harm to future health was not actionable under the Eighth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
