Whether Kingsley v. Hendrickson abrogated or modified the standard for evaluating pretrial detainees' claims challenging their conditions of confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment, as set forth in Bell v. Wolfish

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2015, this Court decided Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 8. Ct. 2566 (2015), announcing for the first time that Fourteenth Amendment due process claims alleging excessive force against pretrial detainees must be evaluated under an objective standard. Kingsley is an extension of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), which long ago set forth the objective standard to be applied to detainees’ challenges to their conditions of confinement. But circuit courts across the country have misconstrued Kingsley and are deeply divided about whether and how it altered the Bell standard for evaluating jail conditions claims. Accordingly, the question presented here is: Whether Kingsley v. Hendrickson abrogated or modified the standard for evaluating pretrial detainees’ claims challenging their conditions of confinement under the Fourteenth Amendment, as set forth in Bell v. Wolfish.