34:
395:
In
October 1978, the District Court reissued its injunction, finding that without it, there was a threat of Jones being involuntarily re-transferred to a psychiatric hospital. By the time the Supreme Court re-heard the case in December 1979, Jones had violated his parole conditions, leading to his
361:
the state of
Nebraska from enforcing this provision. The District Court accepted Jones' argument that requiring him to remain involuntarily confined in state psychiatric treatment until his prison sentence ended would violate his Due Process Clause constitutional right to challenge his transfer.
429:
Part IV-B of White's opinion claimed that state governments must provide prisoners facing psychiatric hospital transfer proceedings with a licensed attorney because those with alleged mental illness are "more likely to be unable to understand or exercise rights." In a
413:, the Supreme Court agreed with the District Court's determination that prisoners have a due process right to challenge the government's claim that they suffer from a mental illness that could not be treated within their prison. While Jones' conviction for
479:
for adjudication because the
Supreme Court's decision to uphold the District Court's injunction was contingent on assuming that the Nebraska Director of Correctional Services would re-transfer Jones to a psychiatric hospital if it were lifted.
685:
347:, and the state would be incapable of proving proper treatment within its prisons. Applying this statute, Nebraska Correctional Services Director Joseph C. Vitek transferred Larry D. Jones from the
355:
325:
626:
294:
128:
85:
343:
state law, the director of correctional services could transfer state prisoners to a psychiatric hospital if they determined that the prisoner suffered from a
370:
690:
695:
417:
justified his prison sentence, the prior state proceedings did not justify subjecting him to the stigma of mental illness and duress of mandatory
567:
489:
438:
argued that the prisoner's legal assistant simply needs to be qualified and independent. Referencing the
Supreme Court's 1973 verdict in
305:
38:
448:, Powell reasoned that because the essential facts of a psychiatric transfer hearing would be undisputed, non-lawyers would suffice.
494:
criticized the ruling for evaluating Jones' liberty interests against involuntary psychiatric commitment in comparison to the
562:
468:, claiming that if the state reattempted to involuntarily transfer Jones for treatment, then he could refile his case.
348:
381:
499:
66:
495:
185:
630:
418:
298:
132:
77:
321:
603:
439:
435:
374:
369:, releasing him from involuntary psychiatric care on the condition that he accept treatment from a
217:
649:
457:
431:
328:
313:
280:
155:
640:
584:
389:
229:
221:
205:
392:
dissented, reasoning that prisoners released on parole were still within government custody.
576:
377:
317:
177:
159:
344:
658:
633:
472:
461:
301:
209:
193:
135:
107:
679:
80:
410:
197:
580:
358:
588:
445:
498:
rights of prisoners in other proceedings, rather than in comparison to the
667:
464:
contended that Jones' release from the psychiatric hospital made the case
97:
476:
465:
385:
340:
414:
384:
the case to assess whether Jones' conditional release made the dispute
366:
309:
151:
563:"Vitek v. Jones : Transfer of Prisoners to Mental Institutions"
444:, which denied legal counsel to convicts facing revocation of their
308:
case in which the Court held that state prisoners are entitled to
502:
rights of civilians against involuntary psychiatric commitment.
475:
dissented on similar grounds, determining that the case was not
396:
reincarceration in the
Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex.
351:
to the
Lincoln Regional Center Security Building in April 1975.
33:
16:
US Supreme Court case on due process rights of prisoners
686:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
409:
In the majority opinion written by
Associate Justice
162:
before involuntary transfer to psychiatric treatment
274:
266:
258:
250:
246:
White, joined by
Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens
242:
237:
166:
144:
118:
113:
103:
93:
72:
62:
52:
45:
26:
373:hospital. In May 1978, the Supreme Court issued a
608:, 411 U.S. 778 (S.Ct. 1973).
548:, 436 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 1978).
534:, 445 U.S. 480 (S.Ct. 1980).
356:US District Court for the District of Nebraska
124:Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp. 569 (Neb. 1977)
8:
320:before their involuntary transfer to state
23:
511:
349:Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
568:American Journal of Law & Medicine
491:American Journal of Law & Medicine
21:1980 United States Supreme Court case
7:
556:
554:
525:
523:
521:
519:
517:
515:
380:the District Court's injunction and
365:In November 1977, Jones was granted
262:Stewart, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
691:United States due process case law
39:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
32:
696:1980 in United States case law
636: (1980) is available from:
1:
561:Gottlieb, Nancy R. (1982).
306:United States Supreme Court
712:
668:Oyez (oral argument audio)
150:Prisoners have a right to
581:10.1017/S0098858800012739
279:
171:
149:
31:
371:Veterans' Administration
324:for treatment under the
500:substantive due process
354:In September 1977, the
46:Argued December 5, 1979
496:procedural due process
326:Fourteenth Amendment's
186:William J. Brennan Jr.
48:Decided March 25, 1980
434:, Associate Justice
419:behavior modification
460:, Associate Justice
400:Supreme Court ruling
388:. Associate Justice
108:Opinion announcement
104:Opinion announcement
604:Gagnon v. Scarpelli
441:Gagnon v. Scarpelli
436:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
375:per curiam decision
314:adversarial hearing
218:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
156:adversarial hearing
471:Associate Justice
458:dissenting opinion
432:concurring opinion
329:Due Process Clause
304: (1980), is a
281:Due Process Clause
182:Associate Justices
390:John Paul Stevens
286:
285:
222:William Rehnquist
206:Thurgood Marshall
703:
672:
666:
663:
657:
654:
648:
645:
639:
609:
607:
599:
593:
592:
558:
549:
547:
541:
535:
533:
527:
322:mental hospitals
254:Powell (in part)
178:Warren E. Burger
167:Court membership
36:
35:
24:
711:
710:
706:
705:
704:
702:
701:
700:
676:
675:
670:
664:
661:
655:
652:
646:
643:
637:
618:
613:
612:
601:
600:
596:
560:
559:
552:
543:
542:
538:
529:
528:
513:
508:
486:
454:
427:
407:
402:
345:mental disorder
337:
230:John P. Stevens
220:
208:
196:
127:Vitek v. Jones
47:
41:
22:
17:
12:
11:
5:
709:
707:
699:
698:
693:
688:
678:
677:
674:
673:
623:Vitek v. Jones
617:
616:External links
614:
611:
610:
594:
575:(2): 175–207.
550:
545:Vitek v. Jones
536:
531:Vitek v. Jones
510:
509:
507:
504:
485:
482:
473:Harry Blackmun
462:Potter Stewart
453:
450:
426:
423:
406:
403:
401:
398:
336:
333:
290:Vitek v. Jones
284:
283:
277:
276:
272:
271:
268:
264:
263:
260:
256:
255:
252:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
210:Harry Blackmun
194:Potter Stewart
183:
180:
175:
169:
168:
164:
163:
147:
146:
142:
141:
140:
139:
125:
120:
116:
115:
111:
110:
105:
101:
100:
95:
91:
90:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
57:Vitek v. Jones
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
27:Vitek v. Jones
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
708:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
683:
681:
669:
660:
651:
642:
641:CourtListener
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
615:
606:
605:
598:
595:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
564:
557:
555:
551:
546:
540:
537:
532:
526:
524:
522:
520:
518:
516:
512:
505:
503:
501:
497:
493:
492:
483:
481:
478:
474:
469:
467:
463:
459:
451:
449:
447:
443:
442:
437:
433:
424:
422:
420:
416:
412:
404:
399:
397:
393:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
372:
368:
363:
360:
357:
352:
350:
346:
342:
334:
332:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:
282:
278:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:Case opinions
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:Chief Justice
173:
172:
170:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
143:
137:
134:
130:
126:
123:
122:
121:
117:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
98:Oral argument
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
40:
30:
25:
19:
622:
602:
597:
572:
566:
544:
539:
530:
490:
487:
470:
455:
440:
428:
408:
394:
364:
353:
338:
289:
288:
287:
275:Laws applied
225:
213:
201:
189:
114:Case history
84:
56:
18:
425:Concurrence
411:Byron White
251:Concurrence
198:Byron White
138: (1978)
680:Categories
506:References
335:Background
63:Docket no.
589:0098-8588
446:probation
382:remanding
73:Citations
621:Text of
484:Reaction
452:Dissents
405:Majority
378:vacating
359:enjoined
341:Nebraska
270:Blackmun
243:Majority
94:Argument
650:Findlaw
415:robbery
318:counsel
267:Dissent
259:Dissent
160:counsel
145:Holding
67:78-1155
671:
665:
662:
659:Justia
656:
653:
647:
644:
638:
587:
367:parole
339:Under
316:, and
310:notice
228:
226:·
224:
216:
214:·
212:
204:
202:·
200:
192:
190:·
188:
158:, and
152:notice
629:
456:In a
312:, an
297:
154:, an
131:
119:Prior
631:U.S.
585:ISSN
488:The
477:ripe
466:moot
386:moot
299:U.S.
133:U.S.
86:more
78:U.S.
76:445
634:480
627:445
577:doi
302:480
295:445
136:407
129:436
81:480
682::
625:,
583:.
571:.
565:.
553:^
514:^
421:.
331:.
293:,
591:.
579::
573:8
89:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.