The U.S. Supreme Court case Michael Owen Perry v. Louisiana in 1990 revolved around the issue of whether a state could forcibly medicate a death row inmate to make him sane enough for execution. Perry, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, had become insane while on death row. The State of Louisiana wanted to restore his sanity through medication so that he could be executed, as per the law which prohibits executing an insane person. However, Perry challenged this decision arguing it violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment (prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth Amendment (right to due process). The Supreme Court granted certiorari but remanded the case back to lower courts without issuing any substantive ruling or setting any precedent regarding forcible medication of inmates for purposes of execution.

In the dissenting opinion for Michael Owen Perry v. Louisiana, Justice Scalia argued that the state of Louisiana had a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice was served by executing Perry's sentence. He contended that it was not cruel and unusual punishment to medicate a prisoner to make him competent for execution, as long as it did not cause pain or discomfort. Furthermore, he believed there were no constitutional grounds preventing states from carrying out death sentences on mentally ill prisoners who have been made competent through medication. The majority’s decision seemed to imply an absolute right of all insane persons not to be executed which is incorrect according to historical practices and legal precedents; insanity has never been viewed as an absolute bar against capital punishment but rather only a factor influencing its imposition or timing.