Solitary Confinement and the Eighth Amendment: Psychological Harm and Evolving Standards of Decency
Solitary confinement has come under renewed scrutiny as prisons across the U.S. face lawsuits and advocacy campaigns emphasizing its psychological harm. In 2023, the United Nations urged member states to restrict solitary confinement, expressing serious concern about its use when prolonged [1]. Although the practice dates back to the 19th century, the continued use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails today raises a constitutional concern. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” a phrase whose interpretation has sparked ongoing debate about what constitutes inhumane treatment [2]. The Eighth Amendment drew inspiration from eighteenth-century English reforms intended to prevent “barbarous punishments,” but the clause has since evolved into a broader constitutional safeguard against excessive or degrading treatment by the state [3]. Courts have long debated how this protection should be interpreted. Some legal experts subscribe to a fixed approach, maintaining the standards of “cruel and unusual” from when the Amendment was ratified [4]. Others embrace evolving standards of decency, a doctrine that interprets the Amendment in light of contemporary moral and social progress. To remain committed to the Amendment's purpose of protecting human dignity, courts must interpret “cruel and unusual punishment” according to these evolving standards of decency rather than fixed historical norms. Under growing legal and ethical scrutiny, modern science compels the conclusion that prolonged solitary confinement, which was once permitted, now constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is not fixed in time but, according to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion in Trop v. Dulles (1958), “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society [5].” In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether denationalizing a soldier who deserted during wartime constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The 5-4 decision was deeply divided, as dissenting opinions argued that a modern interpretation of the Amendment would result in judicial subjectivity. Writing for the majority, however, Chief Justice Earl Warren established a living, dynamic approach to the Eighth Amendment. Warren’s view emphasizes the prevention of outdated conceptions of cruelty. Fourteen years later, Furman v. Georgia (1972) reaffirmed that punishment must align with contemporary notions of justice by deciding that the death penalty is unconstitutional when “administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner” [6]. In Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Court extended the Eighth Amendment’s reach to prison conditions by recognizing that deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, though it found no such violation on the facts presented [7]. Finally, in Hutto v. Finney (1978), the Court curtailed the use of prolonged solitary confinement when combined with unsanitary conditions and inadequate nutrition [8]. By affirming that administrative practices can be deemed unconstitutional when they inflict unnecessary harm, Hutto proves that solitary confinement can be a contributing factor for rulings that a facility violates the Eighth Amendment when resulting in significant harm to the victim. With the decision that the combined effect of administrative practices can be unconstitutional when they inflict unnecessary mental suffering, Hutto marked a turning point in the Court’s willingness to consider psychological harm under the Eighth Amendment. These cases demonstrate the doctrinal evolution that resulted from the Eighth Amendment being a living provision. If moral and scientific progress has shown that prolonged solitary confinement inflicts severe psychological harm, then under the Court’s own logic, such punishment now meets the evolved standard of “cruel and unusual.”
Building on the Court’s evolving standards doctrine, recent judicial decisions have increasingly recognized the constitutional implications of solitary confinement. In Davis v. Ayala (2015), Justice Kennedy’s concurrence questioned the compatibility of solitary confinement with the Eighth Amendment [9]. He noted that extended solitary confinement can cause “terrible psychological suffering” that “may be comparable to torture.” Though the majority upheld the conviction of Ayala, Kennedy’s concerns signaled growing unease within the Court on extreme isolation. This concern was echoed in Palakovic v. Wetzel (3d Cir. 2017) where the court held that prison officials demonstrated deliberate indifference by repeatedly placing a mentally ill inmate in solitary confinement despite clear evidence of mental deterioration [10]. Two years later, Porter v. Clarke (4th Cir. 2019) ruled in a similar manner, concluding that locking death row inmates in nearly complete isolation for twenty three hours a day violated the Eighth Amendment, citing scientific research on the severe psychological effects of confinement [11]. Supporting this concern, the American Psychological Association has noted that prolonged solitary confinement can have serious psychological effects, including anxiety, depression, and cognitive disturbances [12]. These findings reinforce the judicial understanding that solitary confinement inflicts far more than mere discomfort, instead causing severe and lasting mental harm. While the Supreme Court has issued the practice unconstitutional when in combination with other harmful environmental factors, they are yet to issue a definitive ruling on the ban of prolonged solitary confinement, lower courts decisions suggest a need and trajectory for an opinion. As the empirical evidence continues to expand on the damages done by such extreme isolation, so should the judicial recognition that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the evolving standards of decency.
Critics of the evolving standards doctrine take an originalist approach, arguing that the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted as the framers intended in 1791. With this opinion, they see modern reinterpretations of “cruel and unusual” as judicial overreach, ultimately supporting the use of prolonged solitary confinement. Originalists maintain the belief that the constitution is meant to be applied, not updated [13]. This is shown in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), a case that prohibited a mentally disabled individual from receiving the death penalty. In the case, Justice Scalia dissented, criticizing the Court for ruling out of “moral sentiment” [14]. He argued that becoming reliant on evolving standards would risk blurring the line between law and morality, making the Court too subjective. Yet, this originalist framework neglects the open-endedness in which the framers wrote the Eighth Amendment. “Cruel” and “unusual” were not defined in historical context, but left room for moral interpretation as society progresses. Whereas the right to bear arms and due process are easier to locate intent because they are related to tangible things, such as guns and clear procedure, the words “cruel” and "unusual” are inherently vague, meaning little unless compared to today’s standards. The Court affirmed this understanding in Brown v. Plata (2011), ruling that an overcrowded California prison violated prisoners’ constitutional rights because it deprived them of their human dignity [15]. This ruling did not “update” the Constitution, but rather interpreted it in light of new moral standards. This application of historical constitutional rights to modern situations is the same reasoning that needs to be reflected in banning prolonged solitary confinement. With increasing neuroscience and psychology research, the lasting psychological harm inflicted by extreme isolation very clearly undermines the human dignity the Eighth Amendment works to protect. To treat the Amendment as contextually frozen in 1791 would be ignoring the framer’s intent to prevent cruelty in all of its evolving forms. Therefore, acknowledging the limits of originalism and applying a modern lens to the constitutional framework does not distort the document’s purposes, but fulfills them.
While the Supreme Court serves as the guardian of human dignity under the Eighth Amendment, its standards are challenged when cruelty is obscured by concerns for prison security and order. However, prolonged solitary confinement is not merely a tool for discipline, it is a practice that can inflict irreversible psychological damage and undermines the core protections of the Eighth Amendment. Decades of precedent, along with modern empirics and scientific research, makes clear that the Amendment extends beyond preventing physical brutality to prohibiting systemic mental suffering. To interpret the Constitution through evolving standards of decency, the judiciary must acknowledge that the once tolerated act of extreme isolation in prolonged solitary confinement now constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Court needs to determine that human dignity is not to be neglected inside prison walls. Until it does, the Eighth Amendment remains an aspiration rather than a safeguard for society’s most vulnerable.
Works Cited
[1] United Nations, “UN Calls for Restrictions on Solitary Confinement,” United Nations Press Release, February 2023, https://www.un.org/press/en/2023/solitary-confinement.
[2] U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
[3] U.S. Congress, “Evolving or Fixed Standard of Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” Constitution Annotated, U.S. Library of Congress, accessed October 25, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-4-2/ALDE_00000964/.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
[6] Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
[7] Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
[8] Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978).
[9] Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015).
[10] Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2017).
[11] Porter v. Clarke, 923 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2019).
[12] American Psychological Association, “Solitary Confinement: Effects on Mental Health,” APA Monitor on Psychology, October 2012, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/10/solitary.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
[15] Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011).