Wilson v. Seiter

Summary

Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court held that an Eighth Amendment challenge to prison conditions requires both a sufficiently serious deprivation and a culpable state of mind, with deliberate indifference supplying the applicable mental-state standard. Conditions may be considered together when they mutually reinforce a deprivation of a single identifiable human need, but an amorphous challenge to overall conditions is insufficient. Because the Sixth Circuit appeared to have applied the more demanding malicious-and-sadistic standard, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded for reconsideration. Justice White, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, concurred in the judgment but rejected the subjective-intent requirement, arguing that conditions of confinement are themselves punishment and should be assessed objectively.