In the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court case of Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer et al., inmate Larry Hope sued Alabama prison officials, alleging that they had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. The incidents in question involved two instances where he was handcuffed to a hitching post as a disciplinary measure: once for disruptive behavior on a work squad, and another time after an altercation with a guard. During these punishments, he was left shirtless in the sun for hours without bathroom breaks or water (except during one instance when guards poured it over his head). The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Hope, stating that such treatment constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This decision clarified that even if there is no prior exact precedent declaring an action unconstitutional, government officials can still be held accountable if it should have been apparent to them their actions were violating "clearly established" constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer et al., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision expanded the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment beyond its original intent. He contended that this amendment was designed to prevent torturous punishments, not to regulate every aspect of prison life or provide a "federal ombudsman" for prisoners' complaints about their conditions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that handcuffing an inmate to a hitching post constituted torture, arguing instead it was merely uncomfortable but necessary disciplinary action in response to disruptive behavior. Lastly, he criticized how the court applied qualified immunity standards by holding officers accountable based on legal principles not clearly established at time of incident.