In Riggins v. Nevada, the United States Supreme Court held that a person detained for trial has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in being free from the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs. This Note argues that, although the Court ruled correctly, it provided little guidance as to how competing personal and state interests should be balanced in future cases. This Note concludes that the Court's opinion should be interpreted as requiring strict scrutiny of any governmental act which involves the administration of unwanted antipsychotic drugs to pretrial detainees. Furthermore, the Court should have required a showing of actual prejudice, instead of merely a strong possibility of an unfair trial, before reversing Riggins' criminal conviction. Footnotes