�鶹ӰԺ

The United States Constitution remains one of the highest protections of individual freedoms; however, these rights remain frequently ignored, eroded, or denied despite protections for current and former inmates. As mass incarcerations and systematic barriers to reintegrations persist, it remains imperative to recognize that constitutional protections do not vanish behind bars. An originalist approach to constitutional interpretation—one that seeks to uphold the text’s meaning as understood at the time of its framing— offers a powerful defense against the erosion of these rights. The Founders, wary of government overreach and unjust punishment, enshrined fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights, including due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. When applied, originalism protects an individual’s rights from unjust treatment, no matter the circumstance, such as incarceration. However, while originalism provides the best framework for interpreting the Constitution regarding the rights of incarcerated individuals, cases still exist where a flexible living constitutionalist approach may remain necessary to address unforeseen societal changes. This balance allows consistency with the Founders and the adaptability needed to uphold justice in a rapidly evolving world. Overall, originalism provides the most formidable framework for protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners and ex-prisoners by ensuring due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Still, in some cases, a limited application of living constitutionalism may remain necessary to address evolving societal challenges and uphold justice. Ultimately, in today's legal landscape, understanding and defending the constitutional rights of prisoners and former inmates does not prove to be solely an exercise but an imperative to maintain the rights of all citizens.

Originalism, a key philosophy in interpreting the Constitution, remains pivotal in shaping American governance and the protection of civil liberties. By grounding constitutional meaning in history, originalism aims to preserve the integrity of the nation’s foundational legal document and limit judicial activism. The origins of originalism trace back to the ratifications of the Constitution in 1787, in which the Framers advocated for a government bound by these constitutional constraints (National Constitution Center). ��On the other hand, some advocate for living constitutionalism, which promotes a dynamic understanding of the Constitution and its meanings in contemporary situations; however, this framework does not always provide the stability and explicit protections outlined by an originalist approach (Strauss, 2010). In the end, the background of originalism reveals its deep historical roots and theoretical frameworks. As a method of constitutional interpretation, it seeks to preserve the documents’ original meaning, providing a consistent and principled approach to legal decision-making. Whether viewed as a safeguard against judicial overreach or a constraint against constitutional progress, originalism remains a central force in American democracy, especially in protecting vulnerable people. As debates over the Constitution's interpretation’s meaning persist, originalism shapes the nation’s legal landscape, influencing how fundamental rights and governmental powers remain understood and applied, thus ensuring the liberties guaranteed to citizens.

The application of originalism to the Constitutional rights of prisoners and convicts shows its significance in numerous Supreme Court cases, highlighting its ongoing importance and necessity for review. While originalism ensures that the fundamental principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights remain intact, the tension between historical interpretation and modern societal issues leads to debates about whether a living constitutionalist approach remains necessary. However, a thorough examination of such Supreme Court cases reveals how originalist interpretations both uphold and challenge justice for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, demonstrating the importance of understanding originalism’s importance in upholding rights for all.

First, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensures that no individual should experience life, liberty, or property deprivation without appropriate legal procedures. These protections extend to all individuals, including incarcerated persons, reinforcing that constitutional rights remain intact even upon convictions. An originalist interpretation preserves the procedural rights of prisoners by maintaining that they must receive fair trials and sentencing consistent with historical understandings of justice. The Framers of the Constitution enshrined due process as a safeguard against arbitrary government power; thus, an originalist reading ensures that prisoners maintain these fundamental procedural protections as intended by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution (“Modern Doctrine on Privileges or Immunities Clause”). In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), the Court ruled that prisoners retain due process rights in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when facing the loss of good-time credits or other forms of punishment within the prison system. The Court acknowledged that while incarceration entails certain limitations on liberty, it does not strip individuals of all constitutional protections.

Through an originalist framework, the ruling prevented unnecessary deprivations of liberty within the prison system and reinforced the constitutional limits on state power. Moreover, the decision established procedural safeguards, such as advance written notice of charges, the opportunity to present evidence, and a fair hearing, aligning with the original meaning of due process as a check against unchecked governmental authority. Ultimately, by grounding its decisions in the foundations of due process, the Court ensured that the prisoners remained protected against unjust deprivation of liberty within the prison system. This originalist approach not only upholds the constitutional limits on state power but also prevents modern interpretations that could weaken due process protections. Ultimately, by adhering to the Constitution’s original meaning, the judiciary maintains the integrity of prisoners’ rights while ensuring that government actors remain constrained by the principles enshrined by the country’s founding document.

Similarly, originalism remains crucial in ensuring equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, which in 1868 provided a constitutional protection against discriminatory state action. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to guarantee that no person would face denial of the same legal protections afforded to others under the law (“Equal Protection”). An originalist interpretation of this provision ensures that its core purpose, preventing unnecessary discrimination by the government, remains enforceable in all contexts, including within the prison system. The Supreme Court case Johnson v. California (2005) reaffirmed that racial segregation within prisons must face strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review applied to laws or policies that classify individuals based on race. The case arose when the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation implemented a policy of racially segregating prisoners in their cells in initial intake, arguing that this measure proved necessary to prevent violence against racial gangs; however the Court rejected this rationale, emphasizing that even in carceral settings, racial classifications must serve a compelling government interest rather than arbitrary instances.

By applying an originalist reading of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court upheld the foundational principle that government-imposed racial segregation remains inherently suspect. This decision underscores the original meaning of equal protection, which does not merely reflect historical intent but also serves as a constraint against government overreach, preventing the normalization of racially discriminatory practices, even in carceral settings. By interpreting the Equal Protection Clause according to its historical intent, preventing state-sanctioned racial discrimination, an originalist interpretation ensured that equal protection remained intact, even in the face of evolving legal challenges. Ultimately, this case demonstrates that adherence to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents legal justifications for racial discrimination from eroding fundamental constitutional protections, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court case Hudson v. McMillian (1992) illustrates how an originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Framers explicitly banned the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments; thus, an originalist interpretation of this clause maintains that any form of punishment considered cruel during the ratification of the Constitution remains unconstitutional today. This interpretation prevents the judiciary from redefining punishments based on contemporary views, ensuring a consistent safeguard against excessive state power. Namely, the Supreme Court Case of Hudson v. McMillian (1992) affirmed constitutional protection against inhumane treatment even within the prison system. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the excessive force used by prison officials, even without significant injury, constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. By grounding its decision in historical protections against governmental abuse, the ruling reinforced that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment continues to shield prisoners from mistreatment.

Another case illustrating the power of originalism to limit state overreach in penal conditions is Estelle v. Gamble (1976). In this case, the Court ruled that deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, reinforcing the principle that incarceration does not strip individuals of their fundamental protection. This decision further aligns with the Founders’ concerns about the abuse of government power. Based on an originalist understanding of the Eighth Amendment, the ruling underscores that the government must protect individuals even after a conviction, ensuring that punishment does not extend beyond what was initially derived from the law. By ruling that the state must provide adequate medical care to prisoners, the Court maintained the original constitutional limits on punitive authority. It prevented the state from inflicting suffering beyond what the law prescribed. These cases illustrate that an originalist approach ensures that the Eighth Amendment remains a powerful tool against government overreach. Rather than allowing judicial reinterpretation to erode fundamental protections, originalism preserves the Constitution’s historical intent, preventing the state from inflicting unnecessary suffering on incarcerated individuals. By upholding the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, courts reinforce the principle that punishment must remain just and free from unnecessary cruelty. This approach ensures consistency in legal interpretation and maintains a powerful constitutional check on government power, ensuring that even prisoners retain essential rights under the law.

Overall, while originalism provides a strong framework for protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals, there exist circumstances where a living constitutionalist approach can remain necessary to ensure that evolving societal understandings of justice, human dignity, and rehabilitation justly inform legal interpretations. The Constitution was drafted in an era where incarceration conditions, rehabilitation efforts, and concepts of punishment were different from today; thus, a rigid adherence to originalism in every instance could fail to address modern realities. For example, the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Plata (2011) demonstrates a situational application of a living constitutionalist approach. In this case, the Court held that extreme overcrowding in California’s prisons led to inhumane conditions that violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. While the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment sought to prohibit explicitly recognized forms of torture and disproportionate sentencing, modern understandings of human rights, mental health, and prison reform necessitate a broader interpretation that includes the impact of overcrowding and healthcare in today’s prison systems. Ultimately, instances like these highlight how a living constitutionalist approach recognizes the evolving prison standards, thus ensuring a just interpretation of the Constitution to ensure dignity for incarcerated individuals in contemporary society.

Ultimately, ensuring the constitutional rights of prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals requires a balanced approach that respects both the original intent of the Constitution and the necessary evolution of legal principles to meet modern challenges. While originalism provides a formidable framework for protecting due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, a living constitutionalist approach can remain essential in addressing contemporary injustices. Nevertheless, the rights of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals do not prove to exist solely as an abstract legal question but a moral and social imperative that demands attention from lawmakers, courts, and society. As mass incarceration, systematic discrimination, and barriers to reintegration continue to affect millions, the responsibility to uphold justice does not solely rest with the judiciary system but also with legislators and citizens committed to protecting the constitutional rights of all. In the future, policymakers must pursue justice reforms that align with constitutional principles and modern understandings of justice through fair sentencing laws, improved prison conditions, expanded rehabilitation programs, and the restoration of civil rights for ex-convicts. Ultimately, a just legal system that adheres to the law and ensures human dignity, fairness, and equality is central to American democracy. The imperative remains clear: society must reject indifference and apathy toward incarcerated individuals and intentionally work toward a system that reflects the promises of justice within the Constitution.

��

References

Justia Law. “Estelle V. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976),” n.d.

Justia Law. “Hudson V. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992),” n.d.

Justia Law. “Johnson V. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005),” n.d.

Justia Law. “Wolff V. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974),” n.d.

Kennedy, Justice. “BROWN V. PLATA,” n.d.

LII / Legal Information Institute. “Equal Protection,” n.d.

“Modern Doctrine on Privileges or Immunities Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” n.d.

National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. “| Constitution Center,” n.d.

Strauss, David A. 2010. “The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School,”��
University of Chicago Law School. May 9, 2018. ��