WASHINGTON CRIME NEWS SERVICES - Vol.21 No.5 - Mentally Ill Prisoners: Supreme Court Gives Prison Officials Wide Authority to Use Drugs on Inmates

Sep 29, 2026

Supreme Court guidance in a Washington case grants prison officials broad authority to administer antipsychotic, mind-altering drugs to mentally ill inmates without prior court review. The ruling, issued in a 6-3 decision, says existing administrative safeguards—doctor review, independent committee scrutiny, and appeal—meet due process when the inmate is dangerous and treatment is medically in the inmate’s interest. A dissent argues liberty interests require stronger protection against unwanted drugging. Related coverage summarizes broader criminal-justice impacts on young Black males.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

SUPREME COURT GIVES PRISON OFFICIALS WIDE AUTHORITY TO USE DRUGS ON INMATES

Rules in Washington State Case

CORRECTIONS DIGEST

Mentally Ill (continued)

BLACK MALES

Calls for Major Shifts in Resources: From Reaction to Prevention

IN THIS ISSUE

WASHINGTON CRIME NEWS SERVICES°ISSN 0010-9045CDRRECTIDNS Vol.21 No.5 Mentally Ill Prisoners: # SUPREME COURT GIVES PRISONOFFICIALS WIDE AUTHORITYTO USE DRUGS ON INMATES Rules In Washington State Case The U.S.Supreme Court,in a case fromWashington,on Feb.27 gave prison officials wideauthority to force mentally ill inmates to be treatedwith mind altering drugs. The court,in a 6-3 decision written by JusticeAnthony Kennedy,ruled that the state of Wash-ington did not have to go to a court before prisonofficials could administer antipsychotic drugs to aninmate. The court said that administrative proceduresused by the state,which include review by anindependent committee of doctors and the right ofappeal,were adequate to protect prisoners'inter-ests. “We hold that,given the requirements of theprison environment,the Due Process Clause(ofthe Constitution)permits the state to treat a prisoninmate who has a serious mental illness with anti-psychotic drugs against his will,if the inmate isdangerous to himself or others and the treat-ment is in the inmate's medical interest,"thecourt said. In dissent,Justice John Paul Stevens,joinedby Justices William Brennan and ThurgoodMarshall,said the “liberty interests of citizens toresist the administration of mind altering drugsarises from our nation's most basic values.” (See MENTALLY ILL,page two) March 7.1990 IN THIS ISSUE MENTALLY ILLINMATES: S.C.OKs Drug Therapy…… … 1BLACK MALES:Report Analyzes Impact Of Criminal Justice System ……………1MIRANDA BEHIND BARS:S.C.Considering Case...5NSA:Revives A Tradtion…… …………5JOB LISTINGS… … ……6LETTER:NYC's Floating Jail… ……………6CONGRESS:Urged To Reform Death Penalty Process……… … ……7CAMPHILLRIOT:Analysis Continues… …8 N.C.DEATH SENTENCES:Law Unconstitutional..10 NEW REPORT SHOWS DEVASTATINGIMPACT OF CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM ON YOUNG BLACKS # Calls For Major Shifts In ResourcesFrom Reaction To Prevention Nearly one out of every four young blackmales nationwide is under the control of thecriminal justice system—prison,jail,probation,or parole.This new finding represents the highestfigure yet recorded and is one of the conclusions ofa report released Feb.27 by The Sentencing Pro-ject.Comparable rates for young white maleswithin the criminaljustice system are one in 16;for Hispanics,one in 10(see Table 1). (See BLACK MALES,page two) # CORRECTIONS DIGEST (MENTALLY ILL,continued from poge one) He said that the administrative proceduresused in the state of Washington were not enough toprotect the inmate from unneeded and unwanteddrugs. "The mere fact that a decision is made by adoctor does not make it'certain that professionaljudgment in fact was exercised,'"Stevens said."The structure of the(committee)virtually insuresthat it will not be....Institutional control infectsthe decisionmakers and the entire procedure.” The drugging case began when WalterHarper,serving time on robbery charges,sued thestate to halt the involuntary administration ofantipsychotic drugs. According to state records,Harper had vio-lent incidents,including assaulting two nurseswhile on a brief parole,and had received psychi-atric treatment and had consented to the use ofdrugs. On two occasions,he was transferred to theSpecial Offender Center,an institute for convictedfelons with serious mental illnesses,where he wasdiagnosed as suffering from a manic-depressivedisorder. He was given powerful mind-altering drugs tocombat the illness and eventually fought to stopthem. Harper argued the drug he was given caninduce catatonic-like states,alter electro-encepha-lographic tracings and cause swelling of the brain.He said it can also include drowsiness,excitement,restlessness,bizarre dreams,hypertension,nausea,vomiting,loss of appetite,salivation,dry mouth,headache,blurred vision and muscle spasms.Atone time Harper said he would rather die than takethe drug. While lower courts agreed he had

FAQs

What authority did the Supreme Court grant prison officials in the Washington case?

The Court held that, under the Due Process Clause, prison officials may treat a seriously mentally ill inmate with antipsychotic drugs against the inmate’s will when the inmate is dangerous and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest.

What safeguards did the majority say were adequate to protect inmates’ interests?

The majority cited administrative procedures that include review by an independent committee of doctors and the right of appeal as sufficient to protect prisoners’ interests.

Why did Justice Stevens dissent?

Stevens argued that citizens’ liberty interests to resist mind-altering drugs arise from the nation’s most basic values and that the committee structure does not ensure independent professional judgment.

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Valentina