According to the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court held today in its 7-2 decision in U.S. v. Comstock that the federal government can keep sexual predators in custody after their sentence ends. The problem, of course, is that isn't what the Supreme Court actually held.
First, a bit of background on the case itself. In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. One aspect of that law provided that prisoners in federal custody could continue to be held in "civil commitment" after their criminal sentence ended if that prisoner: (1) has engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, (2) currently suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder, and (3) as a result of that mental problem is sexually dangerous to others and would have difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
And what is "civil commitment," you may ask? It is the non-criminal detainment of an individual without their consent under the supervision of the state in a state facility. The term has often been applied to the mentally insane who are civilly committed into a state mental hospital. The committed individual isn't being held or punished for a crime but is being kept in an institution both for that person's benefit and society's. To commit civilly an individual under the Adam Walsh law, the government had to show to a district court that all three factors listed above were satisfied by "clear and convincing evidence" (rather than the criminal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is harder to satisfy). If the court agreed, the individual could then be civilly committed.
In November and December 2006, the federal government instituted proceedings against five different individuals in federal court to have them civilly committed after the expiration of their sentences (or, with respect to the fifth, after a finding that the individual was mentally incompetent to stand trial). Three of the five individuals had previously pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The fourth had pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor, and the fifth was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor but was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The five individuals challenged the law under several provisions of the US Constitution, including arguments that the commitment was actually criminal (and not civil), that it violated the Due Process Clause and the Double Jeopardy Clause, that it violated the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and that Congress exceeded the powers granted to it by Article 1, §8 of the Constitution in enacting the law. The Court's opinion only addressed the final challenge of the petitioners- that Congress exceeded its authority in enacting the law.
Many do not realize that Congress' powers are limited. Congress cannot enact any law it would like. The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws in certain areas (called "enumerated powers"), along with the power to enact laws which are necessary and proper to exercise its enumerated powers. For example, Congress has the power to regulate commerce (that's an enumerated power), but it doesn't have the express power to enact a criminal law for those who would disrupt commerce (like hijackings). Congress' ability to criminalize hijackings would be considered "necessary and proper" to exercise its enumerated power of regulating commerce and would also be constitutional. Separately, then, Congress would also be permitted to build prisons to house federal criminals, enact laws to ensure the safety of those in the prisons, permit the hiring of prison guards, etc.
The question before the Court was whether Congress has the authority, under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, §8, cl.18) of the US Constitution, to enact a statute which permits states to keep sexual predators in civil commitment after the expiration of their federal sentence. The Court held that Congress did have that authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.
That's only part of the story, however. In reaching its holding, the Court expressly said it was assuming, but not deciding, that the Adam Walsh law did not violate any other constitutional provisions (such as the many others argued by petitioners). The Court then remanded the case back to a federal district court for a hearing on other constitutional issues. In other words, the Court's holding was actually far more narrow than the Wall Street Journal suggests. The Court did not categorically say the federal government can keep prisoners indefinitely in civil commitment after their prison sentence expires. It merely said that Congress has the power to make laws regarding civil commitments of federal prisoners who are found mentally insane, including the Adam Walsh law. Whether or not that law complies with other constitutional provisions has not been decided. It could very well be that even though Congress has the ability to make laws regarding civil commitments generally, the courts will find that this specific law regarding civil commitments will be unconstitutional (I will have thoughts on that topic later).
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com