In the case of Murch et al. v. Mottram, 1972, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a defendant's right to due process had been violated when he was committed indefinitely to a mental institution without being given an opportunity for periodic review or release hearings. The petitioner in this case, John Mottram, had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for attempted burglary and subsequently committed under New Hampshire law which allowed indefinite commitment without provision for regular review or potential release. The court ruled that such indefinite detention did not violate his constitutional rights as long as it could be shown that he remained mentally ill and dangerous. However, they also held that there should be some form of hearing at reasonable intervals where the patient has an opportunity to prove that he is no longer dangerous or mentally ill.

In the dissenting opinion for Murch et al. v. Mottram, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Hampshire law allowing involuntary commitment of individuals deemed mentally ill without providing them with legal counsel was unconstitutional. He contended that such an action violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and compared it to criminal proceedings where defendants are guaranteed representation regardless of their ability to pay for one themselves. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuses in mental health institutions and emphasized that legal counsel could provide necessary protection against these risks. In his view, denying this right not only infringed upon individual liberties but also perpetuated societal stigmas surrounding mental illness.