Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time.

In 2005, that court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that in this particular case the named guards had meted cruel and unusual punishment.

Because Hope was only slightly taller than the hitching post, his arms were above shoulder height and grew tired from being handcuffed so high.

Without deciding whether "the very act of placing him on a restraining bar for a period of hours as a form of punishment" violated the Eighth Amendment, the district court determined that the guards were entitled to qualified immunity, and entered judgment in their favor.

Nevertheless, it affirmed the grant of qualified immunity because, in its view, the hitching post was not materially similar to other forms of punishment with respect to which it was "clearly established" that they were cruel and unusual.

In determining whether a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit should receive qualified immunity, the first question to ask is whether the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation.

On the facts presented in this case, the Court concluded that Alabama's use of the hitching post violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The actions of prison officials lack penological justification if they act with deliberate indifference to the health or safety of an inmate.

This was a basic violation of the "dignity of man", which amounts to "gratuitous infliction of wanton and unnecessary pain" prohibited by the law.

The Eleventh Circuit interpreted this standard rigidly, requiring the clearly established right to be "materially similar" to the facts presented by the plaintiff in this case.

Furthermore, Fifth Circuit precedent that was binding on the state of Alabama—forbidding "handcuffing inmates to the fence and to cells for long periods of time, and forcing inmates to stand, sit, or lie on crates, stumps, or otherwise maintain awkward positions for prolonged periods"—should have notified the guards that using the hitching post violated the Eighth Amendment.

The question Thomas asked was whether in 1995 it was obvious that the "mere act of cuffing petitioner to the restraining bar... violated the Eighth Amendment."

The Alabama Department of Corrections's regulation specifically authorized guards to use the restraining bar when inmates were disruptive to the work squad.

In November 2005, a Judge ruled that Larry Hope failed to prove that his treatment in prison amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and the case was dismissed.