The Ashker v Governor of California Case
What crime deems a person worthy of being placed in solitary confinement? How long should someone be in solitary confinement? Should they be placed there before their case is put on trial or after? These are questions that the jury and judge had to consider during the Ashker v Governor of California case. The case fought for prisoner’s rights and went against prisoners being placed in solitary confinement. A person should not be placed in solitary confinement until the case’s trial is concluded. There should be stricter procedural safeguards in place to help determine whether or not someone should be placed in solitary confinement because of the psychological effects that solitary confinement could have on a person, which would then be violating that person’s Constitutional Rights. The longer the person is in solitary confinement the worse the effects are on said person.
Read More
When Silence Becomes Torture: The Constitutional Implications of Ashker v. California When Silence Becomes Torture: The Constitutional Implications of Ashker v. California
In the realm of constitutional justice, the landmark class-action court case Ashker v. Governor of California (2015) sets a controversial legal precedent in prison reform, as it questions the limitations of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement. Although often used interchangeably in public discourse, “indefinite” confinement refers to isolation without a set end date or clear criteria for release, while “prolonged” confinement denotes a far broader spectrum of sustained isolation. Ashker challenged not only the ethics of solitary confinement but also its constitutionality, arguing that the absence of meaningful overview in such cases, without due process, imposes egregious psychological torment as a disciplinary tool—a breach of the Eighth Amendment. As such, the 2015 settlement agreement reached in Ashker v. California, ending the use of indeterminate solitary confinement in California’s Restricted Housing Units (RHU), speaks to a far broader statement: that indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement fundamentally violates the U.S. Constitution’s promise to uphold human dignity and protect against cruel and unusual punishment.
Read More
Expanding the Definition of Physical Force: How Delligatti v. United States Redefines Violence
Delligatti v. United States (2025) is a Supreme Court case that concentrates on whether attempted murder can be committed without the use of physical force. Physical force refers to power, violence, or pressure exerted against an individual through a physical act. This paper contends to prove that physical force does not need to be present in a crime that involves bodily injury or death, even if no physical action was taken. “Bodily injury” or “death” can be broadly defined as attempting or causing harm with the intent to injure or kill.
Read More
