In Hutto v. Finney, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that a lower court had not overstepped its authority by ordering Arkansas prison officials to improve conditions and cease cruel and unusual punishment of inmates, which violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The case arose from complaints about overcrowding, violence among prisoners, inadequate healthcare services and punitive isolation practices within the state's prisons system. The high court also upheld an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 because they were successful in proving constitutional violations by prison authorities. However, it remanded for reconsideration on whether or not these fees should be assessed against individual defendants rather than just institutional ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Hutto v. Finney, Justice Rehnquist argued that federal courts should not have such broad authority to dictate state prison conditions and policies. He believed that the court's decision was an overreach of judicial power into a realm traditionally managed by states, thereby undermining principles of federalism. Furthermore, he contended that while cruel and unusual punishment is constitutionally prohibited, it does not mean discomfort or hardship are also unconstitutional in prisons; rather they may be part of lawful punishment. Additionally, he disagreed with awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs as it could encourage frivolous lawsuits against prisons which would drain resources from already strained correctional systems.