Winnebago County v. C.S., 940 N.W.2d 875

C.S., a Wisconsin inmate diagnosed with schizophrenia, was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar), which does not require a finding of dangerousness.
After a jury found the § 51.20(1)(ar) commitment elements, the circuit court (June 2015) ordered involuntary psychotropic medication under Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)3 based solely on a judicial finding that C.S. was incompetent to refuse medication.
No court ever found C.S. dangerous, and the involuntary-medication order did not require a finding that medication was medically necessary or in his best medical interest.
C.S. brought a facial constitutional challenge to § 51.61(1)(g)3 as applied to inmates committed under § 51.20(1)(ar), arguing incompetence-alone cannot justify forced medication.
The court of appeals upheld the statute; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed.
The Supreme Court held § 51.61(1)(g)3 is facially unconstitutional insofar as it permits involuntary medication of inmates committed under § 51.20(1)(ar) when the only basis is incompetence to refuse; it remanded with instructions to vacate C.S.’s June 2015 medication order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)3 is constitutional when it permits forced medication of an inmate committed under § 51.20(1)(ar) based only on incompetence to refuse (no dangerousness finding).	C.S.: incompetence to refuse alone cannot overcome the significant liberty interest in refusing medication; statute is facially unconstitutional as applied to § 51.20(1)(ar) inmates.	Winnebago County: the State/parens patriae has a legitimate interest in caring for incompetent, mentally ill inmates; forced medication may be justified without a dangerousness finding.	Held: The statute is facially unconstitutional in that context; incompetence-alone is not an essential/overriding state interest to justify involuntary medication, so the June 2015 order must be vacated.

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (prison context: inmate has liberty interest to avoid unwanted antipsychotics; State may medicate if inmate dangerous and treatment in medical interest)
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (forced medication requires overriding justification and medical appropriateness)
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (strict test for medicating defendants to restore competency: important interests, substantial furtherance, necessity, medical appropriateness)
State v. Fitzgerald, 387 Wis. 2d 384 (2019) (WI Supreme Court applying Sell factors for competency-restoration medication)
Lenz v. L.E. Phillips Career Dev. Ctr., 167 Wis. 2d 53 (1992) (incompetent persons retain the right to refuse medical treatment)
State v. Wood, 323 Wis. 2d 321 (2010) (permitted involuntary medication in NGI context; distinguished by violent conduct causation)
Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 366 Wis. 2d 1 (2016) (C.S. I) (upheld § 51.20(1)(ar) commitment scheme without a dangerousness requirement)