## Facts

- Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro were indicted in the Southern District of New York on multiple RICO counts and related offenses alleging extensive organized-crime activity.
- The government moved for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, asserting that no release conditions would reasonably assure community safety.
- The Act authorizes an adversarial detention hearing with counsel, the ability to present and challenge evidence, specified factors for decision, written findings, and immediate review.
- After a detention hearing, the district court ordered detention, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants posed a danger to the community and that no conditions would suffice.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding the Act’s authorization of detention based on predicted future dangerousness facially violated substantive due process.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) based on future dangerousness is facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
2. Whether the Act violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Bail Clause by permitting detention for dangerousness, not solely to prevent flight.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld the statute.
- The Court held that the Act serves a legitimate and compelling regulatory purpose—preventing danger to the community—and is not impermissible punishment before trial.
- The Court emphasized statutory limits and safeguards, including confinement to serious cases, a prompt hearing, proof of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, written findings, and immediate appellate review.
- The Court held the Excessive Bail Clause does not restrict the government’s bail interest to flight prevention; public safety may be considered.
- The Court applied a demanding facial-challenge standard: a statute is facially invalid only if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid.
- Dissents argued the scheme functioned as punishment based on prediction and conflicted with the presumption of innocence and traditional limits on pretrial confinement.

## Legal Principles

- Preventive pretrial detention may be constitutional when it is regulatory (not punitive), targeted to a limited category of serious cases, and supported by strong procedures.
- Detention based on community danger does not, by itself, violate substantive due process when the detention is not excessive in relation to a legitimate regulatory goal.
- For facial constitutional challenges outside the First Amendment overbreadth context, the challenger must show no set of circumstances in which the statute is valid.
- The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Bail Clause does not require that bail determinations consider only risk of flight; the government may also consider public safety.
- Procedural protections supporting detention include a prompt adversarial hearing, a clear-and-convincing evidence standard for dangerousness, and written, reviewable findings.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Bail Reform Act’s authorization of pretrial detention for dangerousness as a permissible regulatory measure with adequate procedural safeguards, and it rejected the claim that the Eighth Amendment confines bail considerations to flight risk alone.


United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)