Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
    • First Ladies
    • Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    • Signers of the Declaration of Independence
    • Delegates of the U.S. Constitution
    • Misc – Great American Bios
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

October 8, 2025 | Supreme Court Stays Order Blocking Roving Immigration Patrols in CA

Kingsley v. Hendrickson: The Objectively Unreasonable Standard for Excessive Force Claims

In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 US _ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the legal standard for finding unconstitutionally excessive force during pre-trial detention. By a vote of 5-4, the justices held that a pretrial detainee pursuing an excessive force claim need only demonstrate that the force used against him was objectively unreasonable.

The Facts of Kingsley v. Hendrickson

While Michael Kingsley was awaiting trial in county jail, officers forcibly removed him from his cell when he refused to comply with their instructions. According to Kingsley, once in his new cell, one officer placed his knee in Kingsley’s back and then slammed his head into the concrete bunk. After exchanging words, another officer applied a taser to Kingsley’s back.

Kingsley filed a complaint alleging that two of the officers used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. At the trial’s conclusion, the District Court instructed the jury that Kingsley was required to prove that the officers “recklessly disregarded [Kingsley’s] safety” and “acted with reckless disregard of [his] rights.” The jury found in the officers’ favor. On appeal, Kingsley argued that the jury instruction did not adhere to the proper standard for judging a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim, namely, objective unreasonableness. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that the law required a subjective inquiry into the officers’ state of mind, i.e., whether the officers actually intended to violate, or recklessly disregarded, Kingsley’s rights.

The Majority Decision on Kingsley v. Hendrickson

The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. “Under 42 U. S. C. §1983, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim,” the Court held. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the majority opinion, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor joined.

According to the majority, determination of reasonableness must be made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time and must account for the “legitimate interests [stemming from the government’s] need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained,” appropriately deferring to “policies and practices that in th[e] judgment” of jail officials “are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”

In support, the majority argued that the objective standard is consistent with existing Court precedent and “adequately protects an officer who acts in good faith, e.g., by acknowledging that judging the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer is an appropriate part of the analysis.”

The Dissent on Kingsley v. Hendrickson

Justice Antonin Scalia authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas. While Justice Scalia agreed that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from “the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment,” he disagreed that any intentional application of force that is objectively unreasonable in degree meets that definition. In his separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. argued that the Court should not have considered the due process claims until the underlying Fourth Amendment issues were resolved.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Holds No Minimum Contacts Required for Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign States Under FSIA
by DONALD SCARINCI on October 2, 2025

In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., 605 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court ...

Read More
SCOTUS Sides With Trump Administration Over NIH Grants Tied to DEI Initiatives
by DONALD SCARINCI on September 26, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to issue emergency orders involving legal challenges to policy cha...

Read More
SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to South Carolina’s Exclusion of Planned Parenthood from State Medicaid Program
by DONALD SCARINCI on September 16, 2025

In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 606 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held t...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of First Step Act to Vacated Sentences
  • SCOTUS Rules E-Cigarette Retailers Can Challenge FDA Order in Fifth Circuit
  • Supreme Court Expands Judicial Review of Agency Actions
  • Supreme Court Pauses Order Reinstating CPSC Commissioners

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising