279:, an old state facility to which Romeo's mother had him committed when she could no longer care for him, did not dispute Romeo's right to care, habilitation, training and security. The critical issue in the case was the standard of care and whether the defendants had violated that standard, and therefore, Romeo's federally protected civil rights. The federal courts had not yet addressed this question in the context of intellectual disability. The trial court therefore looked to a then-recent Supreme Court decision holding that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" in violation of the 8th Amendment. The jury found for the defendants. The 3rd Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial, explaining that the standard of care should have been based on the 14th rather than the 8th Amendment and the Supreme Court agreed. However, the high court rejected the circuit court's articulation of the standard of care.
31:
292:
Whether constitutional rights have been violated must be determined by balancing these liberty interests against the relevant state interests. The proper standard for determining whether the State has adequately protected such rights is whether professional judgment, in fact, was exercised. And in determining what is 'reasonable,' courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional, whose decision is presumptively valid.
291:
Respondent has constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests.
120:
Involuntarily committed residents have protected liberty interests under the Due
Process Clause to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these
336:
512:
231:
444:
315:
72:
507:
263:
and was committed to a
Pennsylvania state hospital. He was restrained for 9 months straight out of his 11 month stay and repeatedly abused. The Supreme Court agreed with the
301:
Shortly after it was remanded to the trial court the case was settled in conjunction with a state decision to close
Pennhurst in 1986, and close all other such institutions.
267:
that involuntarily committed residents had the right to reasonably safe confinement conditions, no unreasonable body restraints and the habilitation they reasonably require.
340:
497:
410:
502:
487:
54:
Duane
Youngberg, Superintendent, Pennhurst State School and Hospital, et al. v. Nicholas Romeo, an incompetent, by his mother and next friend, Romeo
492:
248:
35:
264:
256:
377:
276:
252:
188:
144:
448:
64:
168:
362:
Oyez: Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), U.S. Supreme Court Case
Summary & Oral Argument
397:
245:
180:
176:
156:
389:
136:
361:
310:
164:
481:
401:
205:
Powell, joined by
Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
67:
464:
339:. College of William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repositor. Archived from
152:
393:
83:
472:
79:
455:
95:
110:
Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
259:. Nicholas Romeo had an intellectual disability with an infant level
30:
260:
382:
Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
513:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
337:"Faculty Publications 1553 (2009): Yougberg v. Romeo"
316:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457
225:
217:
209:
201:
196:
125:
114:
106:
101:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
420:. Philadelphia, Penn.: Philadelphia Media Network
275:The defendants, who were management personnel at
411:"The Deinstitutionalization of Nicholas Romeo"
380:(Fall 1982). "Youngberg v. Romeo: An Essay".
287:The syllabus summarizes the court's holding:
8:
335:Michael Ashley Stein and William P. Alford.
508:Mental health case law in the United States
20:
498:History of Chester County, Pennsylvania
327:
213:Blackmun, joined by Brennan, O'Connor
18:1982 United States Supreme Court case
7:
409:Woestendiek, John (May 27, 1984).
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
503:United States disability case law
488:United States Supreme Court cases
473:APA Summary of Youngberg v. Romeo
451:307 (1982) is available from:
251:case regarding the rights of the
29:
493:1982 in United States case law
418:Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine
265:Third Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
244:, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), was a
378:Turnbull III, H. Rutherford
249:United States Supreme Court
529:
394:10.1177/154079698200700301
257:intellectual disabilities
230:
130:
119:
28:
221:Burger (in the judgment)
297:Subsequent developments
253:involuntarily committed
43:Argued January 11, 1982
294:
277:Pennhurst State School
232:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
145:William J. Brennan Jr.
289:
86:128; 50 U.S.L.W. 4681
45:Decided June 18, 1982
343:on December 19, 2020
283:Opinion of the Court
78:102 S. Ct. 2452; 73
189:Sandra Day O'Connor
169:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
441:Youngberg v. Romeo
241:Youngberg v. Romeo
141:Associate Justices
24:Youngberg v. Romeo
237:
236:
177:William Rehnquist
157:Thurgood Marshall
520:
469:
463:
460:
454:
429:
427:
425:
415:
405:
364:
359:
353:
352:
350:
348:
332:
137:Warren E. Burger
126:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
528:
527:
523:
522:
521:
519:
518:
517:
478:
477:
467:
461:
458:
452:
436:
423:
421:
413:
408:
376:
373:
368:
367:
360:
356:
346:
344:
334:
333:
329:
324:
311:Jarvis hearings
307:
299:
285:
273:
255:and those with
181:John P. Stevens
179:
167:
155:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
526:
524:
516:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
480:
479:
476:
475:
470:
435:
434:External links
432:
431:
430:
406:
372:
369:
366:
365:
354:
326:
325:
323:
320:
319:
318:
313:
306:
303:
298:
295:
284:
281:
272:
269:
235:
234:
228:
227:
223:
222:
219:
215:
214:
211:
207:
206:
203:
199:
198:
194:
193:
192:
191:
165:Harry Blackmun
142:
139:
134:
128:
127:
123:
122:
117:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
525:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
485:
483:
474:
471:
466:
457:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
433:
419:
412:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
370:
363:
358:
355:
342:
338:
331:
328:
321:
317:
314:
312:
309:
308:
304:
302:
296:
293:
288:
282:
280:
278:
270:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
243:
242:
233:
229:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:Case opinions
195:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:Chief Justice
132:
131:
129:
124:
118:
113:
109:
105:
100:
97:
96:Oral argument
94:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
440:
422:. Retrieved
417:
385:
381:
371:Bibliography
357:
347:December 19,
345:. Retrieved
341:the original
330:
300:
290:
286:
274:
240:
239:
238:
226:Laws applied
184:
172:
160:
148:
102:Case history
71:
53:
15:
424:November 1,
218:Concurrence
210:Concurrence
153:Byron White
482:Categories
388:(3): 3–6.
322:References
271:Background
121:interests.
84:U.S. LEXIS
402:140420713
82:28; 1982
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
439:Text of
305:See also
246:landmark
202:Majority
92:Argument
456:Findlaw
115:Holding
468:
465:Justia
462:
459:
453:
400:
187:
185:·
183:
175:
173:·
171:
163:
161:·
159:
151:
149:·
147:
447:
414:(PDF)
398:S2CID
107:Prior
449:U.S.
426:2016
349:2020
73:more
65:U.S.
63:457
445:457
390:doi
68:307
484::
443:,
416:.
396:.
384:.
261:IQ
428:.
404:.
392::
386:7
351:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.