In the case of Rhodes v. Chapman, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that double-celling - housing two inmates in a cell designed for one person - did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The lawsuit was brought by Ohio state prisoners who argued that their constitutional rights were violated due to overcrowded prison conditions which included double-celling. However, the court held that while these conditions might be uncomfortable and undesirable, they did not amount to punishment severe enough to be considered unconstitutional unless they deprived inmates of basic human needs or failed to ensure their physical safety. This decision set a precedent for future cases regarding prison conditions and established a high threshold for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within correctional facilities.

In the dissenting opinion for Rhodes v. Chapman, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that double celling - the practice of housing two inmates in a single cell designed for one - constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. He contended that this practice could lead to increased violence, tension, and psychological problems among prisoners due to lack of privacy and personal space. Furthermore, he believed it was not enough to merely consider whether basic human needs were met; rather, courts should also take into account the totality of conditions within prisons when determining if they violate constitutional standards. In his view, overcrowding in prisons is inherently degrading and dehumanizing regardless of whether or not it leads directly to physical suffering or threatens inmate health or safety.