United States v. Salerno
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 1987 Decided May 26, 1987
Full case name	United States v. Salerno
Citations	481 U.S. 739 (more) 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2259
Holding
The Bail Reform Act's legitimate and compelling regulatory purpose and the procedural protections that it offers causes 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) to be facially valid under the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Bail Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
Majority	Rehnquist, joined by White, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia
Dissent	Marshall, joined by Brennan
Dissent	Stevens
Laws applied
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).^[1][2]