302:, that the inspection of all incoming and outbound mail (including mail to and from attorneys) was unreasonable, and that the legal assistance available to inmates was lacking. At the time, the process for disciplinary proceedings involved the prisoner being orally informed of the nature of the charges against them, a report being written by a committee, and the report being read to the inmate. If the inmate denied the charge, they could inquire as to the charging party, but could not cross-examine or present any witnesses. Penalties imposed by the hearings could include loss of
31:
355:
institutional safety or correctional goals", the prisoner could also call witnesses and present evidence in their defense, the Court ruled; the unrestricted right to do so would disrupt the authority of prison officials to provide for the safety of others. Likewise, allowing cross-examination would heighten the potential for disruption and danger; and allowing counsel would cause delay and reduce the utility of the proceedings.
345:
In the majority opinion authored by
Justice White, the Court rejected the idea that prisoners were wholly deprived of their rights under the Constitution. Nevertheless, the majority opinion also recognized that reasonable constraints were, given the nature of imprisonment, not restrictive, especially
354:
The Court went on to note that prisoners were entitled to written notice of violations, at least a day in advance of any hearing, and a written statement from the committee regarding the evidence used and the reasons for a disciplinary hearing. So long as the acts were not "unduly hazardous to
373:
Justice
Marshall, joined by Brennan, agreed on the issues of mail inspection and legal assistance, but disagreed with the majority on the matter of due process. In Marshall's view, inmates did not lose their rights by entering prison, and, in accordance with that, believed that the lack of
361:
As for the question of searching the mail, the Court ruled that it had no issue with states requiring attorneys to specially mark their mail, with name and address; and said that opening mail in the presence of inmates did not constitute censorship.
281:
must be accompanied by notification of the inmate, administrative hearings, the chance to call witnesses and present evidence, and a written statement detailing the nature of the offense committed and the evidence for said offense.
313:
granted only partial relief: it rejected the due process claim, and stated that the legal assistance was not unconstitutionally defective, but found the inspection of mail to violate the right of access to the courts.
551:
310:
256:
472:
318:
133:
82:
561:
298:
lawsuit against Warden
Charles Wolff Jr., charging, among other complaints, that the disciplinary proceedings hearings at the prison were biased and violated
273:
case in which the Court held that prisoners retained some due process rights when incarcerated. In particular, the Court ruled that due process required that
350:
Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.
546:
321:
reversed the district court on the due process claim, affirmed the judgment regarding mail, and ordered hearings into the quality of legal assistance.
429:
556:
328:
365:
The Court affirmed the Eighth
Circuit on the issue of insufficient inmate legal assistance, and remanded the case for further judgment.
35:
424:
382:
Justice
Douglas believed the entirety of a "full hearing with all due process safeguards" was needed before punishments such as
358:
The Court declined to rule on the impartiality of the committee, noting its mandate and the regulations that controlled it.
374:
confrontation and cross-examination in the majority opinion was the Court denying basic constitutional rights to inmates.
291:
270:
114:
125:
519:
396:
177:
63:
476:
74:
146:
In administrative proceedings regarding discipline, prisoners retain some of their due process rights.
383:
501:
403:
205:
89:
446:
169:
111:
510:
303:
278:
213:
193:
492:
438:
161:
122:
483:
201:
181:
540:
333:
295:
77:
324:
299:
189:
93:
528:
129:
450:
118:
274:
442:
30:
230:
White, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
337:, urging reversal of the judgment of the circuit court.
425:"Due Process: Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)"
552:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
250:
242:
234:
226:
221:
150:
140:
106:
101:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
348:
290:In 1974, Robert O. McDonnell, an inmate at the
8:
562:United States criminal due process case law
346:when pertaining to issues of due process:
20:
430:Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
416:
292:Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
329:Solicitor General of the United States
110:Judgment for plaintiffs in part, 342
18:1974 United States Supreme Court case
7:
54:Wolff, Warden, et al. v. McDonnell
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
547:United States Supreme Court cases
479:539 (1974) is available from:
277:disciplinary decisions to revoke
29:
557:1974 in United States case law
1:
269:, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), was a
271:United States Supreme Court
238:Marshall, joined by Brennan
578:
529:Oyez (oral argument audio)
121:1972); aff'd in part, 483
255:
155:
145:
28:
377:
368:
397:Superintendent v. Hill
352:
257:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
178:William J. Brennan Jr.
132:1973); cert. granted,
327:, in his capacity as
45:Decided June 26, 1974
43:Argued April 22, 1974
384:solitary confinement
341:Opinion of the Court
520:Library of Congress
437:(4): 476–82. 1974.
404:Morrissey v. Brewer
206:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
88:94 S. Ct. 2963; 41
469:Wolff v. McDonnell
386:could be imposed.
369:Marshall's opinion
266:Wolff v. McDonnell
170:William O. Douglas
166:Associate Justices
24:Wolff v. McDonnell
378:Douglas's opinion
304:good-time credits
279:good-time credits
262:
261:
214:William Rehnquist
194:Thurgood Marshall
136:U.S. 1156 (1974).
569:
533:
527:
524:
518:
515:
509:
506:
500:
497:
491:
488:
482:
455:
454:
421:
162:Warren E. Burger
151:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
577:
576:
572:
571:
570:
568:
567:
566:
537:
536:
531:
525:
522:
516:
513:
507:
504:
498:
495:
489:
486:
480:
464:
459:
458:
443:10.2307/1142518
423:
422:
418:
413:
392:
380:
371:
343:
288:
204:
192:
180:
97:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
575:
573:
565:
564:
559:
554:
549:
539:
538:
535:
534:
502:Google Scholar
463:
462:External links
460:
457:
456:
415:
414:
412:
409:
408:
407:
400:
391:
388:
379:
376:
370:
367:
342:
339:
319:Eighth Circuit
311:district court
287:
284:
260:
259:
253:
252:
248:
247:
244:
243:Concur/dissent
240:
239:
236:
235:Concur/dissent
232:
231:
228:
224:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
202:Harry Blackmun
182:Potter Stewart
167:
164:
159:
153:
152:
148:
147:
143:
142:
138:
137:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
87:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
574:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
542:
530:
521:
512:
503:
494:
485:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
426:
420:
417:
410:
406:
405:
401:
399:
398:
394:
393:
389:
387:
385:
375:
366:
363:
359:
356:
351:
347:
340:
338:
336:
335:
334:amicus curiae
330:
326:
322:
320:
315:
312:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
285:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
258:
254:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:Case opinions
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:Chief Justice
157:
156:
154:
149:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
105:
100:
95:
91:
85:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
468:
434:
428:
419:
402:
395:
381:
372:
364:
360:
357:
353:
349:
344:
332:
331:, argued as
323:
316:
308:
296:class action
289:
265:
264:
263:
251:Laws applied
209:
197:
185:
173:
102:Case history
81:
53:
15:
325:Robert Bork
300:due process
190:Byron White
541:Categories
411:References
294:, filed a
286:Background
94:U.S. LEXIS
92:935; 1974
60:Docket no.
90:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
467:Text of
390:See also
227:Majority
130:8th Cir.
112:F. Supp.
493:Findlaw
484:Cornell
451:1142518
246:Douglas
141:Holding
119:D. Neb.
532:
526:
523:
517:
514:
511:Justia
508:
505:
499:
496:
490:
487:
481:
449:
275:prison
212:
210:·
208:
200:
198:·
196:
188:
186:·
184:
176:
174:·
172:
64:73-679
475:
447:JSTOR
123:F. 2d
107:Prior
477:U.S.
317:The
309:The
126:1059
83:more
75:U.S.
73:418
473:418
439:doi
134:414
115:616
78:539
543::
471:,
445:.
435:65
433:.
427:.
306:.
96:91
453:.
441::
128:(
117:(
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.