Name two landmark correctional rights cases and summarize their holdings (Wolff v. McDonnell and Estelle v. Gamble).

• A. Wolff v. McDonnell: inmates are entitled to notice and a hearing for disciplinary actions and some due-process protections; Estelle v. Gamble: deliberate indifference to medical need violates the Eighth Amendment.
• B. Wolff v. McDonnell: inmates have no due process rights; Estelle v. Gamble: medical care is optional
• C. Wolff v. McDonnell: addressed search and seizure; Estelle v. Gamble: addressed privacy
• D. Wolff v. McDonnell: parole revocation; Estelle v. Gamble: religious rights

Answer: (A)

The question centers on protecting prisoners’ rights in two key areas: disciplinary proceedings and medical care. The best answer reflects those protections.

Wolff v. McDonnell establishes that inmates facing disciplinary actions must have certain due process protections. They’re entitled to advance notice of the charges, a hearing where they can present evidence and, when feasible, witnesses, and a written statement of the evidence and the reasons for the disciplinary action. This sets a baseline of fairness for prison discipline, showing that inmates retain some constitutional protections even behind bars.

Estelle v. Gamble holds that deliberately ignoring a prisoner’s serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This means prisons must provide adequate medical care and cannot be indifferent to serious health issues, linking medical treatment to constitutional rights in custody.

The other options misstate these holdings, suggesting no due process rights, that medical care is optional, or misattributing the cases to areas like search-and-seizure, privacy, parole, or religious rights.