⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears a prisoner's claim that the warden failed to protect him from other inmates. Blaze Downey reported gang threats and repeatedly asked for protective custody. After an assault, his attorney warned prison staff that other prisoners planned to follow him to a new dormitory and harm him. The prison moved him to another unit, but he was attacked again. Downey sued the warden, who maintains that staff investigated the warnings and that the moves were a reasonable response. The district court entered judgment for the warden without a trial, concluding that the earlier request did not establish knowledge of a specific threat and that the response to the later warning did not show deliberate indifference. That means consciously disregarding a known serious risk, not simply making a poor judgment. Downey's lawyer will argue that the court considered too narrow a record and that a jury should decide what the warden knew and whether he actually responded. The warden's lawyer will defend reliance on prison staff and also argue that no clearly established rule made this response unlawful. Listen for the difference between moving a prisoner to another cell and reasonably addressing the danger that prompted his request for protection.

Blaze Downey v. William Hyatte (No. 25-1693) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.