## Facts

- William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, was housed with a cellmate who smoked about five packs of cigarettes per day.
- McKinney alleged that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from his cellmate and other inmates exposed him involuntarily to an unreasonable risk to his current and future health.
- He claimed prison officials were deliberately indifferent to that risk.
- A federal magistrate judge directed a verdict for prison officials, reasoning there was no Eighth Amendment right to a smoke-free environment and that McKinney had not shown a serious medical need.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding McKinney should be allowed to attempt to prove ETS posed an unreasonable danger to his future health.
- After a Supreme Court remand for reconsideration under Wilson v. Seiter’s deliberate-indifference requirement, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that dangerous ETS exposure could satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment permits a conditions-of-confinement claim based on an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health from ETS exposure, even without present injury.
2. Whether alleging that prison officials, with deliberate indifference, exposed an inmate to ETS at levels posing an unreasonable risk to future health states an Eighth Amendment claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed that it was proper to consider whether McKinney’s claim could be based on future health risks from ETS.
- The Court held that allegations of deliberate indifference to ETS levels posing an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health state an Eighth Amendment claim.
- The Court emphasized that injunctive relief may be available for unsafe conditions even before an inmate suffers actual injury.
- The case was left for further proceedings because McKinney still had to prove both the seriousness of the risk and the officials’ deliberate indifference under the governing standard.

## Legal Principles

- A conditions-of-confinement claim requires:
  - An objective showing that the inmate is exposed to a risk so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to it.
  - A subjective showing that officials acted with deliberate indifference, meaning they knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.

- The Eighth Amendment reaches unreasonable exposure to conditions that threaten serious future harm, not only conditions causing present symptoms or injury.
- Whether a risk violates contemporary standards of decency may consider prevailing social and regulatory judgments about health dangers.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized that prisoners may challenge involuntary exposure to conditions posing an unreasonable risk of serious future health harm, including ETS, provided they can prove both that the risk is sufficiently grave under contemporary standards of decency and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to it.


Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)