Involuntary commitment laws, once seen as reform, now questioned as roadblocks to needed treatment, are discussed. The ineffectiveness of state's commitment laws, lack of community resources for treating the mentally ill, and homelessness among the mentally ill are discussed in the introduction. The history of the right of a state to commit individuals involuntarily is presented. This right is derived from the power of a state to protect society from dangerous persons and the power to act as parent or in the best interest of its citizens. Four factors which spurred commitment law reform, including abuse of the power, institutional crowding, deinstitutionalization, and the move to clarify minority rights are discussed. Legislative guidelines are given, including just commitment and due process. Specific state commitment laws are presented. Future directions for commitment laws are discussed which emphasize an adaptable instead of adversarial posture for the states. A case study of South Carolina is included. (ABL)