# Washington v. Harper > Supreme Court of the United States · April 16, 1990 · 494 U.S. 210 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431923 ## Case - **Full name:** WASHINGTON Et Al. v. HARPER - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 16, 1990 - **Citations:** 494 U.S. 210; 110 S. Ct. 1028; 108 L. Ed. 2d 178; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1174 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall - **Cited by:** 1,355 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431923 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that adoption of the “reasonably related” standard in Turner "was based upon the need to reconcile our longstanding adherence to the principle that inmates retain at least some constitutional rights despite incarceration with the recognition that prison authorities are… - holding a prison’regulation with respect to the involuntary administration of anti-psychotic drugs without a prior hearing valid where the regulation was an accommodation between the inmate’s liberty interests and the State’s interest in providing appropriate medical treatment… - holding that, “given the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is i… - holding that “given the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in… - holding that a prison policy permitting the State of Washington to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if he is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in his medical interest, comported with substantive… ## Opinion text Justice Blackmun, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion. The difficult and controversial character of this case is illustrated by the simple fact that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, which are respected, knowledgeable, and informed professional organizations, and which are here as amici curiae, pull the Court in opposite directions. I add a caveat. Much of the difficulty will be lessened if, in any appropriate case, the mentally ill patient is formally committed. This on occasion may seem to be a bother or a nuisance, but it is a move that would be protective for all *237 concerned, the inmate, the institution, its staff, the physician, and the State itself. Cf. Zinermon v. Burch, ante, p. 113. It is a step that should not be avoided or neglected when significant indications of incompetency are present. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431923. Public record. Not legal advice.