Ohio's process for placing prisoners in its highest security prison, the "Supermax" facility, was inconsistent and lacked clear procedures. Ohio eventually issued a new policy with more guidance and procedural protection, but the District Court found that the notice provisions were inadequate and ordered Ohio to make changes. Ohio appealed, and the Supreme Court found that inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding OSP assignment, but Ohio's New Policy satisfies constitutional requirements. The court used the Mathews framework to determine that Ohio's New Policy strikes a constitutionally permissible balance between the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest, and the government's interest.
Wilkinson v. Austin (2005)
Supreme Court of the United States
545 U.S. 209, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4839, SCDB 2004-060
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
