Supreme Court of the United States
Foucha v. Louisiana
May 18, 1992504 U.S. 71
Summary
The Court, in an opinion by Justice White, held that Louisiana violated due process by indefinitely confining Foucha in a psychiatric institution after the State conceded that he was no longer mentally ill, based on dangerousness that he bore the burden of disproving. A four-Justice portion of White's opinion also found an equal protection violation. Justice O'Connor joined Parts I and II and the judgment, emphasizing that the decision did not foreclose more narrowly tailored detention laws or restrict state choices concerning the insanity defense. Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented, reasoning that proof of criminal conduct and the insanity adjudication justified continued incapacitative confinement. Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, separately dissented, defending the statutory procedures and arguing that neither precedent nor historical practice established the substantive right asserted by the Court.
Holding
- Continued psychiatric confinement of an insanity acquittee who is no longer mentally ill.. Louisiana may not indefinitely confine Foucha in a mental institution under its existing scheme after conceding that he is no longer mentally ill, solely because he has not proved that he is not dangerous.
- Procedural protections necessary to justify continued confinement.. Once Foucha can no longer be held on the original insanity-acquittal basis, continued confinement requires constitutionally adequate procedures establishing a permissible ground for detention; Louisiana's existing burden-shifting scheme is insufficient.
- Equal protection limits on Louisiana's treatment of sane insanity acquittees.. The four-Justice plurality concluded that Louisiana violated equal protection by indefinitely confining sane insanity acquittees without protections afforded to civil committees and other persons whose original basis for confinement had expired.
Docket 90-5844
Cited authorities
- Wash. Rev. Code §§ 10.77.020
- Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.110(1)
- CA11
- Idaho Code § 18-207
- Mont. Code Ann. § 46-14-102
- Ind. Code § 35-36-2
- Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-182.5
- Wis. Stat. §§ 971.17
Cited by
- Floricel Liborio Ramos v. Jefferson B. Sessions
- Kevin Mendonza v. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Vincent L. Callender
- David M. Dutil
- Commonwealth v. John T. McLeod
- Commonwealth v. Jose Torres
- Commonwealth v. William Knapp
- Commonwealth v. Joseph Blake — Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
- Commonwealth v. Wayne Chapman — Marshall, J., dissenting