McKune v. Lile — O'Connor, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment because she found the penalties imposed on the respondent for refusing to participate in a treatment program were not severe enough to constitute Fifth Amendment compulsion. She reasoned that the loss of privileges and security status was minor compared to the loss of livelihood or political rights found in prior precedent. Justice Stevens, dissenting, argued the sanctions were coercive because they stripped earned status and imposed mandatory penalties identical to those for serious discipline infractions.