Was it clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that long-term solitary confinement for a death-row inmate with a mental illness violated the Eighth Amendment?

For thirty -seven years, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) maintained a policy of housing all death -row inmates , including those with mental illness es, in solitary confinement. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this policy in 1988. And no precedent f rom either this Court or the Court of Appeals clearly established that th e policy violated the United States Constitution during the relevant time period. Pet. App. 107a -114a (Phipps, J., dissent ing in part). Nonetheless, a divided threejudge panel held that former DOC Secretary John Wetzel was not entitled to qualified immunity for continuing the purportedly unconstitutional policy . In holding that the law was clearly established, the Court of Appeals relied on a letter from two Department of Justice ( DOJ ) officials expressing their views about the policy ’s constitutionality . Pet. App. 26a -40a (opinion). The question presented is: Was it clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that long -term s olitary confinement for a death -row inmate with a mental illness violated the Eight h Amendment?