<Tr> <Th_colspan="2"> Laws applied </Th> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> U.S. Const . amend . VI, XIV </Td> </Tr> <P> Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), is a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried . Specifically, the court held that lower courts could do so only under limited circumstances in which specified criteria had been met . In the case of Charles Sell, since the lower court had failed to determine that all the appropriate criteria for court - ordered forcible treatment had been met, the order to forcibly medicate the defendant was reversed . </P> <P> Previously, in Washington v. Harper, the Supreme Court made clear that the forced medication of inmates with mental disorders could be ordered only when the inmate was a danger to themselves or others and when the medication is in the inmate's own best interests . In addition, courts must first consider "alternative, less intrusive means" before resorting to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication . </P>

What was the supreme court's ruling in sell v. u.s. (2003)
find me the text answering this question