“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Michael Scudder, nominated by Donald Trump to the Seventh Circuit, wrote a 2-1 opinion that granted qualified immunity from any liability to prison guards who had intentionally subjected a prisoner to extreme cold, by placing him naked in a cold cell for 23 hours. The May 2025 decision was in Smith v Kind.
What happened in this case?
Antonio Smith began a hunger strike to protest prison conditions at a Wisconsin correctional institution. When he declined to exit his cell to undergo a wellness check, he was taken by wheelchair to a health unit for three days. On the fourth day, however, an official decided to pepper spray him to subdue him in order to get him out of his cell, knowing that Smith had significant “medical contraindications” to the spray. Smith reacted by “gasping for breath” for some eight minutes and was then “placed naked in a cold cell for the next 23 hours” where the temperature “ranged from 25 to 57 degrees.”
Smith filed a civil rights suit against the officials who, he claimed, had subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. A district court granted summary judgment to the officials and dismissed the case. Smith appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
How did Judge Scudder and the Seventh Circuit majority rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump Judge Scudder wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by Biden nominee John Lee, that affirmed the court below. Even the majority was “troubled” by “what Smith endured” and agreed that a reasonable jury “could find” that the officials’ conduct “violated the Eighth Amendment.” But Scudder affirmed the ruling below based on qualified immunity, claiming that the Seventh Circuit had previously not “held it unconstitutional” to confine a prisoner under such cold conditions.
Judge David Hamilton, nominated by President Obama, firmly dissented. He noted that precedent makes clear that prisoners have a “well established right not to be subjected to extreme cold” without adequate protection, and a jury could well have found that the guards were “deliberately indifferent” to the suffering Smith experienced. It thus “should have been obvious to a reasonable prison official” that the conduct violated the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and that a prisoner like Smith “need not point to a case that is factually on all fours” in order to prevail.
Trump judge Scudder’s ruling is obviously harmful to Antonio Smith and his effort to get justice for the mistreatment he suffered. It also sets a troublesome precedent in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, in future cases by people contending that they are being confined under cruel and unusual conditions. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.