In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that claims of excessive force against pretrial detainees must be evaluated under an objective standard rather than a subjective one. The case involved Michael Kingsley, who was arrested and detained in Wisconsin's Monroe County Jail awaiting trial on drug charges. He alleged that he was subjected to excessive force by jail officers during his detention which violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. In its ruling, the court held that for a claim of excessive use of force violating due process rights to succeed, it is not necessary for the detainee to prove that the officers were subjectively aware their use of force was unreasonable; instead it would suffice if an objective assessment finds the use of force as unreasonable considering all circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Kingsley v. Hendrickson, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, argued that a pretrial detainee must prove not only that the officers' use of force was objectively unreasonable but also that they subjectively intended to harm him without justification. They contended this standard is consistent with historical common law principles regarding unlawful arrest and imprisonment. The dissenters criticized the majority's reliance on Bell v. Wolfish (1979), arguing it did not support an objective-only test because it involved conditions of confinement rather than excessive force claims. They further asserted that requiring proof of subjective intent would protect officers from liability for reasonable mistakes while still holding them accountable for deliberate misconduct.