United States v. Hardy, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15942

Hardy, detained at a BOP hospital, has been found incompetent to stand trial since 2008 and faces 24-count racketeering/narcotics/murder charges.
Multiple BOP evaluations from 2004–2009 concluded Hardy is mentally ill with schizophrenia; later reports indicated substantial probability of restoration to competency with antipsychotic meds.
Hardy exhibited numerous disciplinary incidents and violent/hostile behavior toward staff, supporting concerns about danger to others.
District court held hearings (2009, 2011, 2012) with testimony from treating and defense experts about risks and likelihood of restoring competency via medication.
Court found that involuntary antipsychotic treatment was medically appropriate and necessary to reduce danger and to restore competency, issuing an order in 2012.
On appeal, Hardy challenges both Harper-based dangerousness and Sell-based restoration standards, but the court affirms the order, applying Harper and noting Sell need not be reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether involuntary medication is permissible under Harper	Hardy argues no ongoing danger; treatment not medically necessary.	Government asserts Hardy's danger to staff and medical necessity of treatment.	Harper standard satisfied; order affirmed.
Whether the Sell restoration-to-competency standard was properly applied	Sell requires showing substantial likelihood of restoration with meds.	Government can rely on Harper danger framework; Sell not required here.	Sell issue not reached; Harper governs; affirmed under Harper.

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (dangerousness and medical appropriateness justify involuntary treatment in prison)
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (restoration-to-competency test; permutation of Harper factors)
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (pretrial detainees retain constitutional rights)