The Supreme Court case Swisher, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, et al. v. Brady et al., 1977 revolved around the issue of whether a state could require that indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors be provided counsel only if they faced actual imprisonment as opposed to potential imprisonment. The court ruled in favor of the respondents (Brady and others), upholding their right to appointed counsel regardless of whether they were facing actual or potential imprisonment. This decision was based on the Sixth Amendment which guarantees all criminal defendants the right to assistance from legal counsel during trials. The ruling emphasized that it is not constitutionally acceptable for states to deny representation by an attorney simply because a defendant might not face immediate incarceration.

In the case of Swisher v. Brady, Justice Rehnquist dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the Maryland statute in question did not violate due process rights as it was designed to protect society from dangerous individuals who were unable to control their behavior due to mental illness. The dissenting opinion stated that involuntary commitment is a necessary tool for states dealing with mentally ill individuals posing a threat to themselves or others and should be upheld if there are adequate procedural safeguards in place. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on "clear and convincing" evidence standard for civil commitments, arguing instead for a "preponderance of evidence" standard which would make it easier for states to commit potentially dangerous individuals.