Whether a pretrial detainee alleging deliberate-indifference must prove the defendant actually-knew of a significant-risk-of-harm, or instead must prove only that the defendant objectively-should-have-known of such a risk

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long required a convicted inmate alleging deliberate indifference to prove that prison officials actually knew of a significant risk of harm to the inmate and nonetheless disregarded it. That tried-and-true framework has proven straightforward and administrable. But when a pretrial detainee brings the exact same claim, the circuits are split on what showing he must make. Some circuits still require proof of actual knowledge by the defendants, but other circuits— including the Sixth Circuit below—hold that the detainee need only prove that officials should have known of such a risk. That objective test has proven unpredictable and costly for local governments, and it is also untethered from the Eighth Amendment origins of a claim for deliberate indifference, which requires a culpable mindset by prison officials. The Court should grant the government’s Petition, which squarely and cleanly presents this important legal issue for resolution. The question presented is: Whether a pretrial detainee alleging deliberate indifference must prove the defendant actually knew of a significant risk of harm, as six circuits have held, or instead must prove only that the defendant objectively should have known of such a risk, as four circuits have held.