In the case of David Riggins v. Nevada, 1991, Riggins was charged with murder and robbery in Nevada. He requested to have his antipsychotic medication discontinued before trial but the court denied this request without conducting a hearing on whether or not it would be safe for him to do so. During his trial, he appeared sedated which led to questions about his competency and ability to participate in his own defense. The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Riggins appealed arguing that forcing him to take medication violated several constitutional rights including due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as rights guaranteed by Sixth Amendment such as right against self-incrimination, right of confrontation and compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Riggins stating that forced administration of antipsychotic drugs during trial without determining necessity or less intrusive alternatives infringed upon defendant's liberty interests protected by Constitution; hence reversing lower courts' decisions.

In the case of David Riggins v. Nevada, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, dissented from the majority opinion. They argued that there was no constitutional violation in administering antipsychotic drugs to a defendant without his consent if it is medically appropriate and considering the state's interest in bringing him to trial. The dissenting justices believed that Riggins failed to show how these medications prejudiced his defense or altered his demeanor so significantly as to deny him a fair trial. They also pointed out that he did not request an alternative treatment plan but simply wanted all medication stopped - which could have resulted in severe psychotic episodes making it impossible for him to stand trial at all. Therefore, they concluded that while forced medication may raise serious concerns under other circumstances, this particular situation did not violate any of Riggin’s rights.