Erickson v. Pardus

551 U.S. 89

Decision date: 2007-06-04

LII transcription of the Court’s slip opinion, including the syllabus and every separately published writing. The syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. Original opens the database’s source edition, which may include later publication corrections. Quotation links identify this transcription; stored database text is available under Read as. The stored text is substantially longer than this source edition; its document boundaries and spacing are queued for review.

Dissent [Thomas]

551 U. S. ____ (2007)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

WILLIAM ERICKSON v. BARRY J. PARDUS et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

No. 06–7317. Decided June 4, 2007

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

I have repeatedly stated that the Eighth Amendment ’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment historically concerned only injuries relating to a criminal sentence. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825 , 861 (1994) (opinion concurring in judgment); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25 , 42 (1993) (dissenting opinion); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U. S. 1 , 18–20 (1992) (dissenting opinion). But even applying the Court’s flawed Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, “I would draw the line at actual, serious injuries and reject the claim that exposure to the risk of injury can violate the Eighth Amendment .” Helling, supra, at 42 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Consistent with these views, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent.