In the case of Marlus C. Zinermon, et al. v. Darrell E. Burch (1989), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burch, a voluntarily committed mental patient who claimed his rights were violated under due process when he was not adequately informed about his right to refuse treatment or commitment at Florida State Hospital. The court held that state officials could be liable for damages under Section 1983 if they deprived individuals of their constitutional rights while acting under color of law - even if state law provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy and regardless whether the deprivation was random and unauthorized.

In the dissenting opinion for Zinermon v. Burch, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Darrell E. Burch's due process rights were not violated when he was admitted to a Florida mental institution because he had voluntarily consented to his admission. He contended that the majority misapplied procedural due process principles by focusing on whether state officials could have foreseen their actions would deprive Burch of his liberty interest rather than considering if there were adequate safeguards in place at the time of deprivation. Furthermore, Kennedy believed that any failure by state officials to follow existing procedures did not constitute a violation of constitutional rights but should be addressed under tort law instead.