Mike Fox and Matthew Cavedon
In 2015, Duane Berry was charged with a single federal count of conveying false information—a crime carrying a maximum sentence of five years. After four years in custody and two competency evaluations, a judge found him incompetent to stand trial and dismissed the charge. That should have ended his case. Instead, Mr. Berry has been unlawfully detained for a decade.
A Fourth Circuit panel upheld the government’s authority to hold Mr. Berry indefinitely, interpreting a pretrial competency restoration statute so broadly that it now permits perpetual confinement. This statute was designed to help mentally ill defendants regain competency for trial—not to authorize indefinite detention in the absence of a pending criminal case. When the Fourth Circuit declined to rehear the case—despite Cato’s urging—Mr. Berry petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
Cato, along with the Due Process Institute, has filed an amicus brief supporting his petition. Our brief emphasizes a foundational principle: The Framers created a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Having endured British overreach, they deliberately constrained central authority and reserved most governmental power for the states.
While Congress may criminalize conduct and punish offenders, the federal government cannot exercise indefinite civil control over individuals no longer lawfully in its custody. For the rare cases in which the Supreme Court has authorized federal civil commitment, it has imposed strict limitations. The Fourth Circuit’s expansive ruling ignores these constitutional safeguards—a problem that will only intensify as federal criminal law continues its unchecked growth.
Left standing, this decision invites the federal government to indefinitely confine any mentally ill person charged with a federal crime, even after those charges have been resolved. This threatens both individual liberty and the constitutional balance between federal and state authority.