## Facts

- Terry Foucha was charged in Louisiana with aggravated burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm.
- Psychiatrists initially found him incompetent to proceed; he was later found competent to stand trial.
- The trial court found Foucha not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to a forensic psychiatric facility.
- Louisiana law permitted continued confinement of an insanity acquittee after a hearing finding dangerousness, even if the person was not then mentally ill.
- In 1988, the facility superintendent and an internal panel reported no evidence of mental illness since admission and recommended conditional discharge.
- A sanity commission reported Foucha was in remission and showed no current psychosis or neurosis, but could not certify he would not be dangerous; testimony described antisocial personality as untreatable and not a mental disease.
- The trial court ordered Foucha returned to the institution based on dangerousness alone, despite the absence of current mental illness.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed; the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits continued confinement of an insanity acquittee in a psychiatric institution solely on a finding of dangerousness when the person is no longer mentally ill.
2. Whether confining such an acquittee under a scheme that places the burden on the acquittee to prove non-dangerousness violates constitutional protections.
3. Whether treating insanity acquittees as eligible for more restrictive or prolonged confinement than other persons subject to civil commitment raises equal protection concerns.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Supreme Court.
- The Court held Louisiana’s scheme unconstitutional insofar as it authorized continued psychiatric confinement of an insanity acquittee who was not currently mentally ill based only on dangerousness.
- The Court concluded the State could not keep Foucha in a mental institution once the mental-illness basis for the commitment had disappeared.
- The Court rejected using antisocial personality, as described in the record, as a substitute for current mental illness to justify continued psychiatric commitment.
- A plurality further reasoned that the scheme operated as arbitrary preventive detention and impermissibly treated insanity acquittees more harshly than similarly situated persons subject to ordinary civil commitment or criminal process.
- Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment on a narrower ground: on this record, where the State did not show current mental illness, continued confinement was impermissible.
- Dissents argued that a State may continue to confine an insanity acquittee based on dangerousness and past criminal conduct, and that the Constitution does not require ongoing mental illness as a prerequisite for such confinement.

## Legal Principles

- An insanity acquittee may be confined only while the conditions justifying psychiatric commitment persist; continued confinement requires both current mental illness and dangerousness.
- Dangerousness alone is insufficient to justify confinement in a mental institution when the State does not establish current mental illness.
- Due process is violated when a State maintains indefinite psychiatric confinement after the mental-illness basis for commitment has ended, particularly where the scheme effectively shifts to the detainee the burden to prove release eligibility.
- A State may address public safety concerns through other lawful mechanisms, including prosecution for new crimes or civil commitment under generally applicable standards, rather than using the insanity-acquittee commitment process as open-ended preventive detention.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Louisiana could not continue to confine an insanity acquittee in a psychiatric facility solely because he was considered dangerous when he was no longer mentally ill; due process requires a current mental illness link to psychiatric confinement, and the State must use other lawful means if it seeks to restrain a non-mentally-ill person for public safety.


Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992)