United States v. Salerno

Background

The dispute involves the United States and two arrestees, Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro, who were charged in a 29-count indictment with serious crimes including RICO offenses, fraud, extortion, gambling, and alleged murder conspiracies. At a detention hearing the Government proffered wiretap intercepts and witness testimony that led a District Court to order their pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 because no release conditions would reasonably assure community safety. The Second Circuit struck down the dangerousness-based detention provision as facially unconstitutional, creating a split among Courts of Appeals that prompted review by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Act’s authorization of pretrial detention for future dangerousness violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive bail. The majority held the statute is regulatory, not punitive, and survives a facial challenge. The Court emphasized limits in the statute: detention is limited to serious offenses, requires an adversary hearing with counsel, allows testimony and cross-examination, requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, mandates written findings and expedited appellate review, and directs the judge to weigh statutorily listed factors such as the nature of the charges and the defendant’s history.

Real world impact

As a result, federal courts nationwide may detain some arrestees charged with specified serious felonies before trial when the Government meets the Act’s strict procedural and evidentiary requirements. The ruling preserves the Act as a tool for preventing dangerous conduct by defendants on release, but it leaves open challenges about how the law is applied in particular cases and about how long detention may last before it becomes punitive.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) warned the decision undermines the presumption of innocence and raised mootness concerns because Salerno was later sentenced in unrelated proceedings and Cafaro cooperated with the Government. Justice Stevens similarly argued indictment alone cannot justify preventive detention and found the provision unconstitutional.