Whether a pretrial detainee can prevail against a jail official who disregarded an obvious risk of serious harm or whether the pretrial detainee must prove that the official subjectively knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm

QUESTION PRESENTED Because U.S. jails incarcerate more than 725,000 people at any given time, federal courts frequently hear claims in which pretrial detainees allege that jail medical staff provided constitutionally deficient treatment. But the legal standard for such claims presents a 4-3 split among the circuits. In the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, pretrial detainees must plead and prove that jail defendants who denied them medical care subjectively knew that their deficient treatment would pose a substantial risk of serious harm. Not so in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. In this case, the Tenth Circuit explicitly acknowledged that “the circuits are split” on the issue and resolved it “head-on.” Pet. App. 10a-11a. The question presented is: Whether a pretrial detainee can prevail against a jail official who disregarded an obvious risk of serious harm or whether the pretrial detainee must prove that the official subjectively knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm. @)