Andy reports that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a St. Louis dentist who was ordered to be forcibly drugged in order to stand trial for overbilling Medicare. For more info, see the Eagle Forum brief for Sell. The SC docket announces:

Petition GRANTED. The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion of Law Office of Julie Ruiz- Sierra for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Did the defense lawyer write this? I would have said psychotropic drugs instead of "antipsychotic medication". The proposed drugs do not have a proven medicinal or antipsychotic effect. I also would have mentioned the 4A "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and 8A "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". The feds will say that the drugging is not punishment, but it seems clear to me that the motive for the drugging is punishment from a vindictive cruel judge.

This is good news for Sell and those who opposed forced psychiatric drugging. I doubt that the SC would hear it, unless it was willing to reverse the case. My impression from reading the judge's opinion is that he was acting out of petty vindictiveness. It is a real scandal that a judge would be drugging someone he doesn't like.