In the case of Charles Thomas Sell v. United States, 2002, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a mentally ill defendant who is not a danger to himself or others can be forcibly medicated in order to render him competent for trial on serious but nonviolent charges. Dr. Charles Sell, a dentist charged with Medicaid fraud and other nonviolent offenses, had been found incompetent to stand trial due his delusional disorder. The government sought court permission to administer antipsychotic drugs against his will so he could become competent for trial. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances it would be permissible; however these were exceptional cases and must meet specific criteria: important governmental interests are at stake; involuntary medication will significantly further those interests; involuntary medication is necessary because less intrusive alternatives won't achieve substantially same results; and administration of drugs is medically appropriate i.e., in patient's best medical interest considering all health factors.

In the dissenting opinion for Charles Thomas Sell v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow forced medication of a mentally ill defendant in order to render him competent for trial was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that such decisions should be left up to medical professionals and not determined by courts. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's creation of a new constitutional right - namely, the right not to be tried while medically sedated against one’s will - as being without basis in law or history. He also expressed concern about potential misuse and abuse of this ruling by prosecutors who might seek involuntary medication orders simply because they believe it would make their cases easier to win.