441 U.S. 520 (1979)
The Metropolitan Correctional Center was constructed in 1975 to serve as a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City.1 It was designed to house approximately 500 persons, primarily pretrial detainees.2 The facility also houses some convicted prisoners who are either awaiting sentencing or transportation to another facility, or who are serving relatively short sentences, generally under 60 days.3 The average length of stay at the MCC is about 30 days for pretrial detainees.4
Respondents, who were pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners at the MCC, brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents seeking damages and injunctive relief.5 They alleged that numerous conditions of their confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.6
After a bench trial, the District Court found that several of the conditions at the MCC violated the Constitution.7 The Court of Appeals affirmed in substantial part.8
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the conditions of confinement at the MCC violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, or the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.9
Whether the conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?10
The Government may not punish a pretrial detainee.11
No. The Metropolitan Correctional Center was constructed in 1975 to serve as a federally operated short-term custodial facility designed to house approximately 500 persons, primarily pretrial detainees, with an average length of stay of about 30 days.12 Respondents, who were pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners at the MCC, brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents seeking damages and injunctive relief alleging that numerous conditions of their confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.13 After a bench trial, the District Court found that several of the conditions at the MCC violated the Constitution and the Court of Appeals affirmed in substantial part.14
The conditions at issue are reasonably related to the legitimate objectives of maintaining institutional security and managing the facility rather than being arbitrary or purposeless, and therefore do not constitute punishment of pretrial detainees.15
The conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall dissented, arguing that the Court's holding departs from precedent and precludes effective judicial review of the conditions of pretrial confinement.17 The proper inquiry should be whether the governmental interests served by any given restriction outweigh the individual deprivations suffered, rather than focusing narrowly on punitive intent.18 The approach taken fails to give meaningful consideration to the impact of restrictions on presumptively innocent detainees.19
Detention officials' intent cannot be the critical factor because it is unrealistic to expect detainees to prove punitive motive through circumstantial evidence.20 The standard applied is unsupportable given that all detainees are presumptively innocent and many are confined solely because they cannot afford bail.21
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, emphasizing that this is a due process case concerning the right of presumptively innocent persons not to be punished.22 The rules at issue inflict punishment by withdrawing fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship in a manner that is excessive in relation to any legitimate regulatory goal.23 The failure to individualize restrictions among detainees confirms their punitive character.24
The majority's test for punishment is unduly permissive because it allows restrictions that serve only administrative convenience.25 The source of the fundamental freedom from punishment is the word liberty itself as used in the Due Process Clause.26
Whether the conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment?27
The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to convicted prisoners and does not govern the conditions of pretrial confinement, which are instead evaluated under the Due Process Clause.28
No. The Metropolitan Correctional Center was constructed in 1975 to serve as a federally operated short-term custodial facility designed to house approximately 500 persons, primarily pretrial detainees, with an average length of stay of about 30 days. Respondents, who were pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners at the MCC, brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents seeking damages and injunctive relief alleging that numerous conditions of their confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments. After a bench trial, the District Court found that several of the conditions at the MCC violated the Constitution and the Court of Appeals affirmed in substantial part.
Because the Eighth Amendment applies only after conviction, it provides no basis for evaluating the conditions of pretrial confinement at the MCC.29
The conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center do not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.30
Whether the conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center violate the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments?31
Restrictions on pretrial detainees that are reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives such as institutional security do not violate the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.32
No. The Metropolitan Correctional Center was constructed in 1975 to serve as a federally operated short-term custodial facility designed to house approximately 500 persons, primarily pretrial detainees, with an average length of stay of about 30 days. Respondents, who were pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners at the MCC, brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents seeking damages and injunctive relief alleging that numerous conditions of their confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments. After a bench trial, the District Court found that several of the conditions at the MCC violated the Constitution and the Court of Appeals affirmed in substantial part.
The specific restrictions at issue, including those affecting receipt of books and packages as well as searches of rooms and persons, are reasonably related to the legitimate objective of maintaining security and therefore do not violate the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.33
The conditions of pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center do not violate the First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendments.34
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell concurred in part and dissented in part on the issue of body-cavity searches.35 He joined the opinion of the Court except the discussion and holding with respect to body-cavity searches.36 In view of the serious intrusion on one's privacy occasioned by such a search, he thought at least some level of cause, such as a reasonable suspicion, should be required to justify the anal and genital searches described in this case.37
He therefore dissented on this issue, believing that the Fourth Amendment requires some level of individualized suspicion for such invasive procedures on presumptively innocent detainees.38