The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, December 10, 1996
Decision: Monday, June 23, 1997
Issues: Due Process, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Carla J. Stovall (Argued the cause for Kansas)
Thomas J. Weilert (Argued the cause for Hendricks)

Facts of the Case

As the time neared for Leroy Hendricks' release from prison, having served for his long history of child sexual molestation, the State of Kansas sought his commitment under its Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act). After testifying that he agreed with the diagnosis that he still suffered from pedophilia and is likely to molest children again, Hendricks became a candidate for civil commitment under the Act which provided for the institutionalization of persons likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence" brought on by "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder[s]." On appeal from a court ordered commitment, the Kansas Supreme Court invalidated the Act as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted Kansas certiorari.

Question

Did the Act's civil commitment provisions, based on its definition of what constitutes a "mental abnormality," violate substantive due process and double jeopardy requirements?

Conclusion

No. Despite Hendricks' claim that a certification of "mental illness" alone was too arbitrary to sustain a civil commitment order, the Court held that the Act met substantive due process standards by requiring considerable evidence of past violent sexual behavior and a present mental inclination to repeat such offenses. Furthermore, the Court held that since it required the release of confined persons who became mentally stable and no longer dangerous, did not speak of scienter, and lacked other procedural safeguards characteristic of criminal trials, the Act did not violate double jeopardy guarantees since it merely authorized "civil" rather than "criminal" commitments

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Kansas, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote a regular concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Breyer's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1649/>
(last visited ).