# Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson > Supreme Court of the United States · May 15, 1989 · 490 U.S. 454 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431673 ## Case - **Full name:** KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Et Al. v. THOMPSON Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** May 15, 1989 - **Citations:** 490 U.S. 454; 57 U.S.L.W. 4531; 109 S. Ct. 1904; 104 L. Ed. 2d 506; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2466 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy - **Judges:** Blackmun, Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Marshall, Brennan, Stevens - **Cited by:** 3,029 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431673 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that protected liberty the Board's procedures. License and Amortization Appeal interests may arise from the Due Process Clause itself or the Bd. Rules of Procedure § 5.02(A). Accordingly, we hold that laws of the states and that a state creates a protected liberty appe… - holding that a regulation that stated a visitor “may be excluded” when officials find reasonable grounds to believe that the “visitor’s presence in the institution would constitute a clear and probable danger to the institution’s security or interfere with [its] orderly operat… - holding that “an inmate’s interest in unfettered visitation is [not] guaranteed directly by the Due Process Clause. We have rejected the notion that ‘any change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner involved is sufficient to invok… - explaining that courts “examine procedural due process questions in two steps”: first, the court “asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State,” and second, the court “examines whether the procedures attendant upon that d… - holding that protected liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause itself or the laws of the states and that a state creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limits on official discretion, such as Amandating the outcome to be reached upon a findi… ## Opinion text Justice Kennedy, concurring. I concur fully in the opinion and judgment of the Court. I write separately to note that this case involves a denial of prison access to particular visitors, not a general ban on all prison visitation. Nothing in the Court’s opinion forecloses the claim that a prison regulation permanently forbidding all visits to some or all prisoners implicates the protections of the Due Process Clause in a way that the precise and individualized restrictions at issue here do not. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431673. Public record. Not legal advice.