Civil and Human Rights

Moore v. Texas

In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide, among other things, whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is violated by the execution of an inmate after an extended period of incarceration, especially when much of that time has been spent in solitary confinement.

Case Summary

Bobby James Moore was sentenced to death in 1980 and has spent more than 35 years living on death row. He has spent nearly 15 of those years in administrative segregation, which means he is alone in his cell for more than 22 hours a day. In 2003, Moore filed a state court writ challenging his 2001 punishment retrial and death sentence. Moore raised numerous claims, including that execution after his prolonged confinement on death row would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, emphasizing the psychologically traumatic conditions that he has experienced in administrative segregation. The state habeas court granted Moore’s petition in part and denied it in part, but on appeal the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Moore’s petition in full. Moore appealed, filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief which urged the Court to grant review and clarify that excessive periods of confinement prior to execution, especially when spent in solitary confinement, violate the Eighth Amendment. The Court has long recognized that the final clause of the Eighth Amendment not only prohibits barbaric punishments but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed. Our brief argued that an inmate’s long-term placement in solitary confinement violates this proscription because, as numerous studies have shown, the psychological damage caused by long-term solitary confinement is so incredibly severe as to be excessive with respect to virtually all prisoners. In our brief we urged the Court to grant review to consider the important Eighth Amendment questions raised by extended confinement on death row.

On June 6, 2016, the Supreme Court granted Moore’s petition for certiorari limited to the petition’s first question, which asks whether prohibiting the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability and requiring the use of outdated standards when determining whether an individual should be executed is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court declined to consider the second question (the one we urged the Court to consider), namely, whether excessive periods of confinement prior to execution, especially when spent in solitary confinement, violate the Eighth Amendment.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
March 31, 2026

CAC Release: In Chiles, Roberts Court Continues Its Dangerous Distortion of the First Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, a...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2026

David H. Gans joined Arnie Arnesen’s The Attitude podcast

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
David H. Gans joined Arnie Arnesen's The Attitude podcast to discuss his recent article in Slate magazine about...
By: David H. Gans, Arnie Arnsen
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2026

Gans on Black Conventions and the Reconstruction Amendments

Legal Theory Blog
The Legal Theory Blog recommended David H. Gans’s exciting new scholarship on Reconstruction-era Black Conventions. Read an...
Civil and Human Rights
March 5, 2026

Gans on Black Conventions during Reconstruction

Legal History Blog
David Gans, Constitutional Accountability Center, has published Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding,...
Civil and Human Rights
March 2, 2026

AI and Constitutional Democracy at 250

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center and William & Mary (W&M) Law School’s Digital Democracy Lab
Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Cases Implicating Constitution’s Fundamental Guarantee of Equality for all Persons

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral arguments at the Supreme Court this morning in Little v....
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Praveen Fernandes, David H. Gans