In the case of Taylor v. Riojas, 2020, Trent Michael Taylor sued several correctional officers for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment after being confined in horrific conditions during his detention in Texas prisons. He was held for six days in two cells covered with feces and then transferred to a very cold cell without a bed or clothing. The U.S prison officials argued that they were protected by qualified immunity - a legal doctrine shielding government officials from civil liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against them stating that any reasonable officer should have realized that such conditions constituted an Eighth Amendment violation. This ruling is significant as it challenges the broad application of qualified immunity which has been criticized for protecting law enforcement and other public officials from accountability.

In the dissenting opinion for Taylor v. Riojas, Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority's decision to deny qualified immunity to prison officials. He argued that the Court had deviated from its usual standards by not requiring a precedent establishing their conduct as unconstitutional before denying them immunity. According to him, this case did not meet that standard because there was no prior case where an inmate was held in similar conditions for only six days and it resulted in a constitutional violation ruling. Therefore, he believed that these officials could have reasonably thought their actions were lawful at the time they occurred based on existing precedents.