Restraint and Seclusion: A Risk Management Guide – Courts have long recognized that people with mental illnesses have the right to be free from the improper use of seclusion and restraint. In the landmark 1982 case Youngberg v. Romeo, the Supreme Court recognized that the use of restraint is a drastic deprivation of personal liberty, holding that “the right to be free from undue bodily restraint is the core of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 316 (1982). Over the past decade, however, a clear consensus has emerged that restraint and seclusion are safety interventions of last resort and that the use of these interventions can and should be reduced significantly. In evaluating the potential legal risks associated with the use of restraint and seclusion, risk managers should understand this emerging consensus as critical to a determination about whether a particular use of these interventions reflects “the exercise of professional judgment.”