What is the US Supreme Court case US v Salerno about?

Answer 1

The case United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987), challenged the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 on the grounds that it violated a defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and imposed punishment under the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.

In Salerno, the Boss and one of the Captains of the Genovese organized crime family were arrested on 29 counts of racketeering, including conspiracy to commit murder, under the US RICO statutes. The District Court ordered the two men held without bail under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court ruling, holding the decision violated substantive due process because it unreasonably interfered with the liberty rights of the defendants. As such, the Second Circuit found the Act unconstitutional on its face because detention without bail punished the individuals for anticipated future crimes.

"[The Bail Reform Act's] authorization of pretrial detention [on the ground of future dangerousness] [is] repugnant to the concept of substantive due process, which we believe prohibits the total deprivation of liberty simply as a means of preventing future crimes."

The US Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the legislation could only be overturned as unconstitutional if "no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." While the Court acknowledged the Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances, that was insufficient to nullify the act because the Court only recognized the "overbreadth doctrine" (can be applied to broadly) in the context of the First Amendment.

The Court further held that the Act did not violate substantive due process rights because the confinement was regulatory, not punitive (it served a purpose other than punishment). Congress intended the Act to prevent danger to the community, which the Court held was a reasonable goal. The statute protected the defendants' rights by providing for a hearing to contest the decision and by limiting the length of time the defendants could be held before trial.

Salerno also alleged that a law allowing the defendants to be held without bail violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause by setting bail at "an infinite amount." This argument was based on Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1 (1951), in which the Court stated that "[b]ail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated [to ensure the defendant's presence at trial] is 'excessive' under the Eighth Amendment."

Chief Justice Rehnquist countered that the Eighth Amendment didn't anticipate a need to hold defendants without bail, and that there were other established exceptions to the Excessive Bail Clause. In reversing the Second Circuit, Rehnquist summarized the Court's position:

"In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited exception."