Editing Stephen Breyer (section)

===Defendant protections===
On June 21, 2011, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Turner v. Rogers]]'' on the requirement of [[counsel]] or some other safeguard in [[civil contempt]] cases.<ref>{{cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21contempt.html | title=Court Issues Split Ruling on Poor's Right to Counsel | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=June 20, 2011 }}</ref> In his opinion, he acknowledged that a [[right to counsel]] does not exist in all matters relating to incarceration, as in civil contempt cases the defendant's opponent is also often unrepresented, the arguments typically center on straightforward questions, and substitute safeguards are available.<ref>{{cite web |last=Diller |first=Rebekah | url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/turner-v-rogers-what-court-did-and-didnt-say | title=Turner v. Rogers: What the Court Did and Didn't Say | website=[[Brennan Center for Justice]] | date=June 21, 2011 }}</ref> These safeguards, such as soliciting financial information or informing the defendant of the legal significance of payment, were required to have been provided by the state on pain of an erroneous deprivation of liberty.<ref>{{cite web |last=Van Oort |first=Aaron | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2011/6/supreme-court-decides-turner-v-rogers | title=Supreme Court Decides Turner v. Rogers | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 20, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Schultz |first=Evan | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/opinion-analysis-no-right-to-lawyer-for-deadbeat-dad/ | title=Opinion analysis: No right to lawyer for deadbeat dad | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 21, 2011 }}</ref>

On June 22, 2015, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Kingsley v. Hendrickson]]'' that a pretrial detainee must prove that [[Police brutality|excessive police force]] was excessive only by an objective standard, not a subjective standard.<ref>{{cite web |last=Panditharatne |first=Mekela | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/police-force-supreme-court-kingsley/398861/ | title=When Is the Use of Force by Police Reasonable? | website=[[The Atlantic]] | date=July 17, 2015 }}</ref> In his opinion, he wrote that the [[Due Process Clause]] protects pretrial detainees from "objectively unreasonable" force by a state actor.<ref>{{cite web |last=Walsh |first=Mark | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/a-view-from-the-courtroom-a-web-of-intrigue-as-the-term-winds-down/ | title=A "view" from the Courtroom: A web of intrigue as the Term winds down | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author-link=Mark Joseph Stern | last = Stern |first=Mark Joseph |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/supreme_court_kingsley_v_hendrickson_a_new_protection_against_police_abuse.html | title=After Freddie Gray | website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref> He concluded, "in the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not 'rationally related to a legitimate non-punitive governmental purpose' or that the actions 'appear excessive in relation to that purpose.'"<ref>{{cite web |last=Re |first=Richard | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-supporting-excessive-force-claims-in-jails-and-prisons/ | title=Opinion analysis: Supporting excessive force claims in jails – and prisons? | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 22, 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Gilna |first=Derek | url=https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/7/supreme-court-clarifies-legal-standard-pre-trial-detainee-excessive-force-claims/ | title=Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Pre-Trial Detainee Excessive Force Claims | website=[[Prison Legal News]] | date=July 7, 2015 }}</ref>

On February 21, 2018, Breyer wrote for the majority in ''[[Class v. United States]]'' on whether some who has already pleaded guilty may challenge a federal law's constitutionality.<ref>{{cite web |last=Scarinci |first=Donald | url=https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2018/03/01/class-v-united-states-2018/ | title=CLASS V UNITED STATES (2018) GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT BAR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANT FROM CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE OF CONVICTION | website=Constitutionallawreporter.com | date=2018 }}</ref> In his opinion, he distinguished ''Class'' from past cases where appeal was denied, such as ''[[United States v. Broce]]'' and ''[[Menna v. New York]]'', as Class's admission of guilt resulted in his ability to appeal the questioned indictments that his record would otherwise have contradicted.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lucian |first=Dervan | url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/2018-cato-supreme-court-review-5.pdf | title=Class v. United States: Bargained Justice and a System of Efficiencies | website=[[The Cato Institute]] | date=2018 }}</ref> He concluded, "the claims at issue here do not fall within any of the categories of claims that Class's plea agreement forbids him to raise on direct appeal. They challenge the Government's power to criminalize Class's (admitted) conduct. They thereby call into question the Government's power to 'constitutionally prosecute' him. A guilty plea does not bar a direct appeal in these circumstances.”<ref>{{cite web |last=Sample |first=Brandon | url=https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/apr/19/guilty-plea-does-not-foreclose-challenge-constitutionality-conviction-us-supreme-court-decides/ | title=Guilty Plea Does Not Foreclose Challenge To Constitutionality Of Conviction, U.S. Supreme Court Decides | website=Criminal Legal News | date=April 19, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Little |first=Rory | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/opinion-analysis-appellate-constitutional-attacks-offense-conviction-not-waived-absent-explicit-waiver/ | title=Opinion analysis: Appellate constitutional attacks on the offense of conviction are not waived absent explicit waiver (Corrected)| website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=February 23, 2018 }}</ref>