| Kansas v. Hendricks |
|---|
|
|
| Full case name | Kansas v. Leroy Hendricks |
|---|
| Citations | 521 U.S. 346 (more) |
|---|
|
| Prior | In re Hendricks, 259 Kan. 246, 912 P.2d 129 (1996); cert. granted, 518 U.S. 1004 (1996). |
|---|
|
| Reverses Kansas Supreme Court and agrees with the state's procedures for the indefinite civil commitment procedures for sex offenders meeting the definition of a "mental abnormality" upon release from prison |
|
- Chief Justice
- William Rehnquist
- Associate Justices
- John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
|
|
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
|---|
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
|---|
|
| Due Process, Miscellaneous; Criminal Procedure, Ex Post Facto |
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners who are convicted of a sex offense and are deemed by the state to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality.
Background
Under Kansas's Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act), any person who has a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" and so is likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence" may be indefinitely confined.[1] Leroy Hendricks and Tim Quinn had extensive histories of sexually abusing children. When they were due to be released from prison, Kansas filed a petition under the Act in state court to involuntarily commit Hendricks and Quinn. Hendricks and Quinn challenged the constitutionality of the Act and requested a trial by jury, which the court granted. Hendricks and Quinn testified during the trial that they agreed with the diagnosis by the state psychiatrist that they suffer from pedophilia and admitted that they continued to experience uncontrollable sexual desires for children when under extreme stress. The jury decided that they qualified as sexually violent predators. Since pedophilia is defined as a mental abnormality under the Act, the court ordered that Hendricks be civilly committed.[1]
Hendricks appealed the validity of his commitment to the Kansas Supreme Court and claimed that the state was unconstitutionally using ex post facto and double jeopardy law . The state court ruled that the Act was invalid on the grounds that the condition of "mental abnormality" did not satisfy the "substantive" due process requirement that involuntary civil commitment must be based on the finding of the presence of a "mental illness." It did not address the claims of ex post facto and of double jeopardy.[1]
The United States Supreme Court granted Kansas certiorari.
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled against Hendricks in a 5–4 decision. It agreed with the Act's procedures and the definition of a "mental abnormality" as a "congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses to the degree that such person is a menace to the health and safety of others."[2] It agreed with Kansas that the Act limits persons eligible for confinement to persons who are not able to control their dangerousness.
Further, the Court decided the Act does not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy prohibition or the ban on ex post facto law because the Act does not establish criminal proceedings and so involuntary confinement under it is not punishment. Because the Act is civil, Hendricks' confinement under the Act is not a second prosecution or double jeopardy. Finally, the Court said the Act is not considered punitive if it fails to offer treatment for an untreatable condition.[1][3]
Reaction
Some commenters have observed that the decision could be interpreted to expand involuntary civil commitment for people with personality disorders to allow for the indefinite detention of large numbers of criminals:[2]
"[T]he precommitment requirement of a 'mental abnormality' or 'personality disorder' is consistent with the requirements of ... other statutes that we have upheld in that it narrows the class of persons eligible for confinement to those who are unable to control their dangerousness."
Subsequent developmemts
In the subsequent Kansas v. Crane (2002), this decision was upheld for an individual that suffered from exhibitionism and antisocial personality disorder.[4]
See also
External links
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| Dormant Commerce Clause |
- Brown v. Maryland (1827)
- Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
- Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
- George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
- Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
- Edwards v. California (1941)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
- National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
- Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
- White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
- Maine v. Taylor (1986)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
- Granholm v. Heald (2005)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
- Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
- National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)
|
|---|
| Others | |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| Copyright Act of 1790 | |
|---|
| Patent Act of 1793 | |
|---|
| Patent infringement case law | |
|---|
| Patentability case law | |
|---|
| Copyright Act of 1831 | |
|---|
| Copyright Act of 1870 | |
|---|
| Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 | |
|---|
| International Copyright Act of 1891 | |
|---|
| Copyright Act of 1909 | |
|---|
| Patent misuse case law | |
|---|
| Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 | |
|---|
| Lanham Act |
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
- Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
|
|---|
| Copyright Act of 1976 |
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
- Stewart v. Abend (1990)
- Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
- Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
- Golan v. Holder (2012)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
- Allen v. Cooper (2020)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
|
|---|
| Other copyright cases | |
|---|
| Other patent cases |
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
- United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
- United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
- Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
- Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
- Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
- United States v. Adams (1966)
- Brenner v. Manson (1966)
- Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
- Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
- United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
- Dann v. Johnston (1976)
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
- Parker v. Flook (1978)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
- Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
- Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
- LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
- Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
- Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
- Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
- Gunn v. Minton (2013)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
- FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
- Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
|
|---|
| Other trademark cases | |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|