Whether the Eighth Amendment provides the sort of explicit textual source of constitutional protection for 'overdetention' such that the Eighth Amendment, not substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for analyzing claims of unconstitutional 'overdetention'

This case concerns the constitutional rights of those subject to “overdetention ,”—i.e., incarceration beyond the end of one’s prison sentence for non -punitive reasons . Circuits are divided over the source and resulting scope of any constitutional rights against overdetention. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State may “ deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sec. 1. The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and unusual punishment” shall not be inflicted . U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Notwithstanding these independent precepts, the court below “decline[d]” even to consider petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment claim because it held that for persons subject to overdetention, the Eighth Amendment provides an “explicit textual source of consti tutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior.” Pet. App. 12a. (quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis , 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998) (alteration in panel opinion)) . In so holding, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its own rule that is both ( 1) flagrantly contradicted by the Eighth Amendment’s text, and (2) in open and acknowledged conflict with its sister circuits . The question presented is: Whether the Eighth Amendment provides the sort of explicit textual source of constitutional protecti on for “overdetention” such that the Eighth Amendment, not substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for analyzing claims of unconstitutional “overdetention.” (ii)