In the case of John H. McCarthy v. George Bronson et al., 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that prisoners who allege that prison officials have used excessive physical force must show more than a mere disagreement over the necessity of such force or de minimis use to make out a claim under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The court held that if force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, it would not be considered as cruel and unusual punishment even if it appeared severe when viewed from afar. However, if maliciously and sadistically used for causing harm, then such actions could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation regardless of how insignificant they might appear in retrospect.

In the dissenting opinion for McCarthy v. Bronson, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to treat prisoner petitions about conditions of confinement as civil rights actions rather than habeas corpus petitions was incorrect. He believed this interpretation would limit prisoners' access to federal courts and potentially leave them without a remedy for constitutional violations. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that these cases could be adequately handled by state courts, citing concerns over their ability or willingness to enforce federal law in prisons effectively. Finally, he warned that this ruling might discourage inmates from pursuing legitimate claims due to fear of retaliation or other negative consequences within prison systems.