Hurtado et al. v. United States

The court held that a person sentenced to death had standing to challenge Texas DNA-testing procedures under the Due Process Clause.

The Court decided that, in light of newly disclosed evidence and the state attorney general's confession of error, Richard Glossip should receive a new trial.

The court held that a statute authorizing enhanced penalties for using a firearm during the commission of a "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague.

The Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of due process.

The Court held that while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to a liberty interest in not being placed in a Supermax prison, Ohio's procedures for determining which prisoners should be placed there satisfied the requirements of due process.

The United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried.

The court held that Ohio's clemency procedure is constitutional because the minimum required by the Due Process Clause is notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Court held that people who have been released from incarceration in programs that are equivalent to parole have the same rights as people on parole; they are entitled to a hearing before the government can return them to incarceration.

The court held that Bounds v. Smith did not create an abstract, freestanding right for incarcerated people to access a law library or legal assistance.

The court held that a statute creates a liberty interest for incarcerated people only if it imposes "atypical and significant hardship" in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.

The Court determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society.

The Court held that due process required that prison disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be supported by "some evidence."

The court held that a ban on contact visits for pretrial detainees is not unconstitutional.

The court held that incarcerated people do not have a due process right to choose the prison in which they are held, even if they are transferred to a prison across the ocean.

The Court held that state prisoners are entitled to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before their involuntary transfer to state mental hospitals for treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The court held that parolees do not have a reasonable expectation of due process.

The Court considered the constitutionality of conditions of confinement in federal short-term detention facilities and found that, although pre-trial detainees' treatment is constrained by the Constitution, all the challenged policies passed constitutional scrutiny.· AI-written

In a case where prisoners alleged they were denied court access for lack of an adequate legal library and help with court documents, the Court held that prison authorities must provide inmates legal assistance or access to a legal library.· AI-written

In a case about prisoners' due process rights, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause did not give a prisoner a right to a fact-finding hearing before transfer to a facility with significantly more unfavorable conditions.· AI-written

The Court held that prisoners retained some due process rights when incarcerated.

The court held that people facing parole revocation have due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that imprisoned people have a right to access a law library.