United States v. Salerno

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

| Litigants = United States v. Salerno

| ArgueDate = January 21

| ArgueYear = 1987

| DecideDate = May 26

| DecideYear = 1987

| FullName = United States v. Salerno

| USVol = 481

| USPage = 739

| ParallelCitations = 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2259

| Prior =

| Subsequent =

| Holding = The Bail Reform Act's legitimate and compelling regulatory purpose and the procedural protections that it offers causes {{USCSub|18|3142|e}} to be facially valid under the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Bail Clause.

| Majority = Rehnquist

| JoinMajority = White, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia

| Dissent = Marshall

| JoinDissent = Brennan

| Dissent2 = Stevens

| LawsApplied = Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment
Bail Reform Act of 1984}}

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society. The Act was held to violate neither the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor its Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Background

The case was brought up when the American Mafia member Anthony Salerno was arrested and indicted for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Decision

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority. Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens each wrote dissenting opinions.

Salerno is famous for expounding the "no set of circumstances" test. Challengers who bring a facial challenge to a statute claim the statute is "void on its face" and so should be declared unconstitutional. That is an extremely high burden, as the challenger must show that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid.

The Court, however, recognized the well-established overbreadth doctrine, which provides a different standard for facial challenges of laws that are alleged to violate the First Amendment.

Aftermath

In October 1988, Salerno was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison, including a $376,000 fine, and ordered to forfeit half of the racketeering proceeds (estimated to be $30 million).{{cite news|title=Ex-Mobster 'Fat Tony' Salerno|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19920729/1504653/ex-mobster-fat-tony-salerno|agency=Associated Press|work=Seattle Times|date=July 29, 1992|access-date=July 22, 2017}}{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ps00rXa_IcsC|title=Federal Government's Use of Trusteeships Under the RICO Statute|volume=4|publisher=United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations|year=1989}}

References

Sources

{{cite journal |last=Goldkamp |first=John S. |year=1985 |title=Danger and Detention: A Second Generation of Bail Reform |journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=76 |issue=1 |pages=1–74 |doi=10.2307/1143353|jstor= 1143353 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol76/iss1/1 }}
{{cite journal |last=Eason |first=Michael J. |year=1988 |title=Eighth Amendment: Pretrial Detention: What Will Become of the Innocent? |journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=78 |issue=4 |pages=1048–1079 |doi=10.2307/1143417|jstor= 1143417 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6580&context=jclc }}
{{cite journal |last=Howard |first=John B. Jr. |year=1989 |title=The Trial of Pretrial Dangerousness: Preventive Detention after United States v. Salerno |journal=Virginia Law Review |volume=75 |issue=3 |pages=639–679 |doi=10.2307/1073254|jstor= 1073254 }}