The Constitutionality of Excessive Solitary Confinement
April 29, 2025
Written By: Kaleah Baylee Taylor
Edited By: Brett Fisher and Sophia Stoute
Abstract
This paper examines the practice of solitary confinement and its societal acceptance as a prolonged and cruel punishment, focusing on the case Gay v. Baldwin (2020). The case involves Mr. Gay who, initially sentenced to seven years, had his term extended to nearly two life sentences due to infractions stemming from untreated mental health issues. After twenty years in solitary confinement, he filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Corrections. The case highlights the harsh conditions people face as punishment, including isolation and a lack of mental health care. It also shows the absence of adequate ways to challenge their confinement. The Supreme Court, in their case selection, has deliberately failed to address the constitutionality of the psychological conditions imposed on inmates in solitary confinement, resulting in lower courts across the country having to craft various nuanced standards to deal with this issue. This paper will analyze the case's social implications and its potential to set legal precedents for the treatment of incarcerated individuals with mental health conditions and the regulation of solitary confinement overall.
Solitary confinement
Solitary confinement conditions remain largely the same across penitentiaries around the country. The primary purposes of solitary confinement include (1) to protect an individual from particular threats, (2) to impose a sanction for a discrete act, or (3) to control an inmate perceived to pose a current or future risk [1]. Individuals in solitary confinement are isolated for twenty-three hours a day in a concrete or steel-walled cell of varying size, from as small as six feet by twelve feet. People in solitary confinement have little contact with other people, including prisoners and prison guards alike. Very few inmates placed in solitary confinement escape the consequences of the punitive and oppressive conditions. While policies and regulations surrounding solitary confinement may vary by jurisdiction, the key aspects like cell size, minimal contact, physical activity, and eating scheduling remain consistent [1].
Case study
In Gay v. Baldwin (2020) a prisoner who, initially sentenced to seven years, had his term extended to nearly two life sentences due to infractions stemming from untreated mental health issues. After twenty years in solitary confinement, he filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Corrections, claiming violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Gay's complaint claims that the psychological harm caused by solitary confinement is cruel and unusual by today's standards. This complaint exists specifically in the context of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. Meaning this is an issue that infects the entire nation, but some areas have more humane regulations than others. A key aspect of Gay’s claim is designated for courts on appeal to align with other jurisdictions that have condemned the prolonged use of the practice [3]. This dynamic emphasizes the need for a precedent to be developed that regulates solitary confinement for people in prison and especially for those with serious mental illness. The Eighth Amendment most fundamentally protects people from cruel and unusual punishment [3]. It ensures that punishments for crimes are fair and not excessive. The circumstances of solitary confinement are proven to deliberately deteriorate the health of those experiencing it, making prison officials liable for Eighth Amendment violations if extreme, abusive, or prolonged.
The United States has more prisoners than any other country in the world, and it also has the highest number of people in solitary confinement. The use of solitary confinement has become much more widespread in recent years, mirroring the trend of mass incarceration. Society is prompted, particularly those from Black and Latino communities who are disproportionately in contact with the criminal justice system, to evaluate this inhumane practice. Especially when considering the extreme nature that Gay has experienced the practice [4].
This case is extremely complex, engaging many different intricacies of the law, including sovereign immunity, Constitutional violations, medical care requirements, disability accommodations, etc. However, there are two most notable complexities within this case. The first concerns sovereign immunity; two days before Gay’s recusal, the designated judge denied the Department’s motion to dismiss but dismissed the State of Illinois as a defendant, even though no such request had been made. He ruled that, since the majority of the institutions in Illinois accept federal funding, it cannot claim Eleventh Amendment (federal) immunity. However, because when this case arose in 2020, the Director of the Department of Corrections was sued in his official capacity, this action is essentially considered suing the state. This decision raises concerns about sovereign immunity, suggesting that penitentiaries that receive any federal funding may be shielded from lawsuits, which could have harmful consequences for incarcerated populations now and in the future.
In 1958, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of nonphysical forms of cruel and unusual punishment in Trop v. Dulles. The court in Trop ruled that taking away someone's citizenship as a punishment for a crime is unconstitutional, reflecting the changing standards of decency in a growing society. This is notably important as this is the first instance that the court recognized that the Eighth Amendment does not require physical mistreatment or primitive torture to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but rather the power to punish under the Eighth Amendment must be exercised within the limits of civilized standards and expectations.
Thirty years later, in Hutto v. Finney, the Supreme Court addressed whether punitive isolation for more than thirty days in the Arkansas prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court described the conditions of the jail as “a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world,” and in 1978, the Supreme Court held that punitive isolation for longer than thirty days in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The majority conceded that solitary confinement alone was not necessarily unconstitutional and serves an important and legitimate interest in the administration and disciplinary regulation of a prison. That same year, the Supreme Court established the foundation for the modern test for Eighth Amendment claims in Estelle v. Gamble. In Estelle, the plaintiff claimed that prison personnel provided inadequate medical treatment after he sustained a back injury when a bale of cotton fell on him while he was unloading a truck. The Court established that the government is obligated to provide medical care for those it incarcerates, because failure to do so may produce physical torture, prohibited under the Eighth Amendment [1]. Other cases accompany and support the ones mentioned that attempt to regulate the behavior within the penal system to protect all parties; however, a case concerning the matter has been heard since 1994. The remainder of this dialogue will discuss the possible implications of the continuous postponement of cases concerning confinement and various avenues explored thus far.
Bearings
The Supreme Court’s avoidance of cases concerning prolonged solitary confinement allows a lack of clear regulation, allowing harmful practices to resurface and thrive. Without a contemporary decision, people in prison may endure harsh treatment, and authorities could avoid responsibility by denying them essential protections. This is a particularly delicate dynamic given the current conservative ideologies dominating the Supreme Court of the United States. However, before 2025, these basic protections were crucial and should have been prioritized by more neutral courts. Moving forward, this inaction prevents the establishment of stronger protections for vulnerable populations, continuing to expose them to unconstitutional conditions. The absence of clear judicial intervention perpetuates a system where marginalized individuals in society remain at the mercy of a system that habitually fails to recognize their dignity, personhood, and consequently their rights. In the long term, this neglect not only undermines the principles of justice but also risks further eroding public trust in the fairness of the legal system.
Works Cited
[1] Smith, John. 2024. "Reevaluating Solitary Confinement: A Constitutional Analysis." Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 55 (3): 1125-1150. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2772&context=luclj.
[2] Cunningham, M. D., and J. L. Vigen. 2019. "Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System." Psychiatric Clinics of North America 42 (2): 193-202. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6987921/#:~:text=About%2057%25%20of%20men%20and,any%20criminal%20legal%20system%20exposure.
[3]”Case: Gay v. Baldwin.” 2018. Clearinghouse Case. https://clearinghouse.net/case/17071/.
[4] "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT." 2020. Clearinghouse. https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/108156.pdf.
