Vitek v. Jones
445 U.S. 480 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to provide certain procedural protections to a prisoner before involuntarily transferring them to a state mental hospital for treatment, as this transfer implicates a protected liberty interest.
Facts:
- Larry D. Jones was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a term of three to nine years in a Nebraska state prison.
- While incarcerated, Jones was placed in solitary confinement.
- In solitary confinement, Jones set his mattress on fire, resulting in severe burns to himself.
- After receiving treatment for his burns at a private hospital, a designated physician found Jones was suffering from a mental illness that could not be properly treated within the prison complex.
- Based on this finding, state officials transferred Jones against his will from the prison to a security unit at the Lincoln Regional Center, a state mental hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Jones intervened in a lawsuit filed by other prisoners against Nebraska state officials in a three-judge federal District Court.
- The District Court declared the Nebraska transfer statute unconstitutional as applied to Jones and permanently enjoined the state from transferring him without specific procedural protections.
- The State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
- Before the case was heard, Jones was paroled, and the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the District Court to consider the issue of mootness.
- On remand, the District Court found the case was not moot because Jones was under a real threat of re-transfer and reinstated its judgment.
- Jones subsequently violated parole and was reincarcerated in the state prison complex.
- The State again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the involuntary transfer of a state prisoner to a mental hospital for treatment of a mental disease implicate a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus requiring procedural protections beyond the diagnosis of a state-appointed physician?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes, the involuntary transfer of a state prisoner to a mental hospital implicates a protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections. First, Nebraska's own statute creates a justifiable expectation that a prisoner will not be transferred unless specific substantive predicates are met—namely, a finding of a mental disease that cannot be treated in prison. This state-created expectation is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Second, independently of the statute, a prisoner retains a residuum of liberty. The transfer to a mental hospital is qualitatively different from ordinary imprisonment; it imposes a significant stigma, carries adverse social consequences, and subjects the prisoner to mandatory and often intrusive behavior modification programs, constituting a 'grievous loss' not authorized by the original criminal conviction.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes, the transfer implicates a protected liberty interest and requires due process, including the provision of qualified and independent assistance to the inmate. However, this assistance does not necessarily have to be a licensed attorney. Because the central issue is medical in nature, due process can be satisfied by providing a qualified and independent adviser, such as a psychiatrist or other mental health professional, who can help the inmate understand the complex issues and act in their best interest. The core requirement is for competent and independent assistance, not specifically legal representation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
The Court should not decide the issue because the case is moot. After his initial transfer, Jones was paroled and later reincarcerated in the general prison population. As such, he is simply one of thousands of Nebraska prisoners, and there is no demonstrated probability that he will be subjected to the transfer statute again. The situation is not 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' because if a new transfer were threatened, there would be sufficient time to litigate the claim then.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
The Court should not decide the issue because the case is not ripe for adjudication. After Jones was returned to prison for a parole violation, the state officials have not expressed any present intent to transfer him again. The threat of future transfer is speculative and hypothetical, not an immediate injury. Therefore, the dispute lacks the 'sufficient immediacy and reality' required to constitute a live case or controversy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of prisoners' due process rights, establishing that a criminal conviction does not extinguish all liberty interests. It distinguishes the profound effects of an involuntary psychiatric commitment—including stigma and forced treatment—from less severe changes in confinement conditions, like a prison-to-prison transfer, which the Court had previously held do not trigger due process protections. By recognizing both a state-created liberty interest and an inherent one, the case sets a crucial precedent that states cannot unilaterally reclassify prisoners as mentally ill without affording them a fair hearing, thereby reinforcing that even within the prison system, certain deprivations require constitutional safeguards.
