Law360 (May 21, 2026, 4:46 PM EDT) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants who were ordered hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation should not have been held without bail when no hospital beds were immediately available. 

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld involuntary commitment for competency evaluations as appropriate in both cases, the justices found that courts cannot use detention to bridge the gap when hospital resources are scarce.

"No matter how well-intentioned, a judge may not detain a criminal defendant without bail solely because a hospital bed is unavailable to conduct a competency evaluation," Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the court.

The high court issued the rulings in a pair of companion cases involving two women referenced in court documents as S.W. and R.D., who were both subject to orders last year for inpatient competency evaluations in their criminal proceedings.

State court judges ordered both women to be held in lockup pending their transfer to hospitals for inpatient competency evaluations. 

The Supreme Judicial Court said the statute that authorizes involuntary commitment for a competency evaluation, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 123 Section 15(b), does not allow for detention "solely because the resources necessary to conduct the evaluation are unavailable."

"Nor does any other statute confer such authority," the justices said.

While courts also have some inherent powers to take action that furthers the administration of justice, "the power to detain defendants pretrial while they await hospitalization under Section 15 (b) is not among those functions," according to the decisions.

"Such detention does not advance adjudication but instead operates as a judicial response to the commonwealth's inability to implement the statutory commitment scheme," a problem better addressed by lawmakers, the justices found.

Both women had been released by the time their cases reached the Supreme Judicial Court, which would ordinarily make a legal challenge to their detention moot. However, the high court said the issue of whether the women were appropriately detained was "an important question that implicates a fundamental liberty interest and that may generate confusion in the trial courts."

A court clinician's initial evaluation of S.W., who was facing one count of assault in Pittsfield District Court, had suggested she was suffering from severe untreated mental illness, according to the court's opinion. The signs included delusions that S.W. was the queen of England and married to King Charles.

A judge ordered S.W. to be committed for an inpatient competency evaluation at the clinician's recommendation. The clinician warned that no beds were likely to be available for the next several weeks, and the judge ordered S.W. to be held without bail in the interim.

After S.W. petitioned for her release from both the detention and hospitalization orders, a different judge of the state court allowed S.W. to go home on a personal recognizance bond.

Justice Dalila Wendlandt, acting as a single justice, reviewed S.W.'s petition and affirmed the commitment order but determined her detention without bail had been unlawful.

The Supreme Judicial Court agreed Thursday, ruling the detention was not authorized but involuntary commitment was an appropriate course of action given S.W.'s condition, including her apparently untreated mental illness and difficulty understanding the charges against her. 

S.W.'s assault charge was dismissed while her appeal was pending.  

In the other case, R.D., who was arrested on domestic violence charges, was also unlawfully detained but her hospitalization was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court.

R.D.'s uncooperative behavior made it reasonable for the judge to predict she wouldn't willingly show up for an outpatient evaluation, making involuntary commitment the "least restrictive means" of assessing R.D.'s competency, the justices said.

Her first competency evaluation came at the request of her own counsel after R.D. reportedly was unable to hold a logical conversation with her attorney and refused to enter the courtroom for her arraignment.

A court clinician said R.D. refused to participate in the initial evaluation and noted she appeared to be experiencing symptoms of psychosis. The clinician recommended R.D. be committed for observation and an additional competency evaluation. 

A judge issued a hospitalization order and ordered R.D. be held without bail pending completion of her competency evaluation. After spending several more hours in lockup, R.D. was transferred to a hospital for her inpatient evaluation.  

R.D. filed a petition in state court the next day challenging her detention and commitment. Justice Scott L. Kafker, acting as a single justice, vacated the detention order but affirmed R.D.'s hospitalization order after first remanding it for the judge to provide findings supporting commitment. 

While R.D.'s petition was pending, she completed the competency evaluation and was found competent to stand trial. The criminal charges against her were dismissed without prejudice two weeks later, according to the opinion.

Michaela R. Martin Strout of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, who represented S.W. and R.D., celebrated "the court's unequivocal holding today that it is unlawful to detain defendants in jail when a hospital bed for an inpatient competency evaluation is not immediately available."  

In a statement provided to Law360, Strout also said she was "encouraged" by the Supreme Judicial Court's statement that inpatient competency evaluation orders shouldn't be used as a form of involuntary mental health treatment. 

"We are hopeful that these rulings today will result in the trial courts continuing to explore other, less restrictive options for evaluating defendants' competency, like outpatient evaluations with community-based clinicians," Strout said. "By ensuring that only those defendants who meet the statutory and constitutional criteria for pretrial detention and/or inpatient evaluation are restrained, we foster respect for the autonomy and capacity of people living with mental illness and reserve limited inpatient hospital resources for only those who truly need them."  

The district attorneys' offices that represented the state in the cases did not respond to requests for comment. 

S.W. and R.D. were represented by Michaela R. Martin Strout of the Committee for Public Counsel Services.

The state is represented by Jocelyn A. McGrath of the Berkshire District Attorney's Office in the case of S.W. and Kenneth E. Steinfield of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office in the case of R.D.

The cases are S.W. v. Commonwealth, case number SJC-13785, and R.D. v. Commonwealth, case number SJC-13774, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

--Editing by Covey Son.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.