O'Connor v. Donaldson established that which of the following is true?

• A. Mental illness alone is not enough for involuntary hospitalization; mentally ill cannot be confined against their will if they can survive on their own
• B. The state can confine any mentally ill person
• C. Involuntary admission requires guardian consent
• D. Involuntary treatment is always necessary for safety

Answer: (A)

The main idea tested is how civil commitment is limited by due process: confinement cannot be based on mental illness alone. In O'Connor v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court held that a non-dangerous person with a mental illness cannot be confined in a mental hospital merely because of the illness if they can live safely in freedom. The liberty of individuals is protected unless there is danger to self or others or a grave incapacity to provide for basic needs. This means the state can’t automatically confine all mentally ill people; danger or grave disability must be shown. It also means that guardianship or involuntary treatment isn’t required in every case. So the statement that mental illness alone is not enough for involuntary hospitalization—and that confinement isn’t permissible if the person can survive on their own—accurately reflects the ruling.