In the 1985 case Whitley v. Albers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of prison officials who had shot a prisoner during an attempt to quell a riot at Oregon State Penitentiary. The court held that corrections officers are not liable for injuries inflicted on prisoners during disturbances unless they act maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, rather than acting in good faith to restore order. In this particular case, inmate Richard Albers was shot in his knee while he was being used as a shield by other inmates during a riot; he subsequently sued under Section 1983 alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the court found no evidence suggesting that Officer Russell Whitley acted with malice or intended to cause unnecessary harm when shooting Albers.

In the case of Whitley v. Albers, Justice Brennan dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that a prison official's deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, regardless if it occurred during a riot or not. Brennan believed that there was enough evidence to suggest that Whitley had acted with such indifference when he shot Albers in his knee without any immediate threat present, thus causing him severe injury and eventual amputation of his leg. The justice also disagreed with the majority’s application of a higher standard for proving an Eighth Amendment violation during a prison disturbance; he maintained that this approach failed to consider inmates' rights adequately and could potentially encourage officials to use excessive force under chaotic circumstances without fear of legal consequences.