Six days before Graydon Earl Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Comstock was a sexually dangerous person. The law that Attorney General Gonzales was applying was ruled unconstitutional by lower courts on the grounds it exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. Argued in January 2010 by Solicitor GeneralElena Kagan, the position of the United States was that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to enact the law.[9]
DecisionEdit
Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which decided that the Necessary and Proper Clause permitted Congress to enact such a provision. John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer's opinion. Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Antonin Scalia joined in all but Part III–A–1–b.[2]
Five considerationsEdit
The Court said: "We base this conclusion on five considerations, taken together."
The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to enact laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other enumerated powers.
The statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related statutes that have existed for many decades.
The statute in question reasonably extends the longstanding policy to cover the mentally ill and sexually dangerous persons already in federal custody.
The statute properly accounts for state interests by ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the statute" whenever a state requests.
The statute is narrowly tailored to address only the legitimate federal interest.
Text of United States v. Comstock, 560U.S. 126 (2010) is available from:JustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
October 20, 2023
united, states, comstock, 2010, decision, supreme, court, united, states, which, held, that, federal, government, authority, under, necessary, proper, clause, require, civil, commitment, individuals, already, federal, custody, practice, introduced, adam, walsh. United States v Comstock 560 U S 126 2010 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody 1 The practice introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law s constitutionality because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States v ComstockSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 12 2010Decided May 17 2010Full case nameUnited States Petitioner v Graydon Earl Comstock Jr et al Docket no 08 1224Citations560 U S 126 more 130 S Ct 1949 176 L Ed 2d 878Case historyPrior507 F Supp 2d 522 E D N C 2007 affirmed 551 F 3d 274 4th Cir 2009 cert granted 557 U S 918 2009 SubsequentOn remand 627 F 3d 513 4th Cir 2010 HoldingThe federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P Stevens Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerSamuel Alito Sonia SotomayorCase opinionsMajorityBreyer joined by Roberts Stevens Ginsburg SotomayorConcurrenceKennedy in judgment ConcurrenceAlito in judgment DissentThomas joined by Scalia all but Part III A 1 b Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 2 1 Five considerations 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground EditSix days before Graydon Earl Comstock was to have completed a 37 month sentence for receiving child pornography Attorney General Alberto R Gonzales certified that Comstock was a sexually dangerous person The law that Attorney General Gonzales was applying was ruled unconstitutional by lower courts on the grounds it exceeded Congress s constitutional authority Argued in January 2010 by Solicitor General Elena Kagan the position of the United States was that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to enact the law 9 Decision EditStephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court which decided that the Necessary and Proper Clause permitted Congress to enact such a provision John Roberts John Paul Stevens Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer s opinion Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Antonin Scalia joined in all but Part III A 1 b 2 Five considerations Edit The Court said We base this conclusion on five considerations taken together The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to enact laws that are rationally related and reasonably adapted to executing the other enumerated powers The statute at issue constitutes a modest addition to related statutes that have existed for many decades The statute in question reasonably extends the longstanding policy to cover the mentally ill and sexually dangerous persons already in federal custody The statute properly accounts for state interests by ending the federal government s role with respect to an individual covered by the statute whenever a state requests The statute is narrowly tailored to address only the legitimate federal interest See also EditUnited States federal laws governing defendants with mental diseases or defects Kansas v Hendricks 1997 Kansas v Crane 2002 List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 560References Edit JESSE J HOLLAND Court Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison Associated Press Retrieved 5 16 2010 a b 08 1224 United States v Comstock 05 17 2010 PDF Supremecourt gov Retrieved June 12 2010 Predators and the Constitution WSJ com January 19 2010 Retrieved June 12 2010 Sex offenders behind bars How long Los Angeles Times January 18 2010 Retrieved June 12 2010 Kirkland Michael U S Supreme Court Throwing away the key for sex offenders UPI com Retrieved June 12 2010 Mears Bill May 17 2010 Supreme Court Sex offenders can be held indefinitely CNN Retrieved June 12 2010 Stohr Greg May 17 2010 Sex Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U S High Court BusinessWeek Retrieved June 12 2010 dead link Biskupic Joan May 18 2010 Sex offenders may be confined past sentences Usa Today Retrieved June 12 2010 Justices Rule That Sex Offenders May Be Held After Their Sentences End nytimes com by Adam Liptak May 17 2010External links Edit nbsp Wikisource has the original text of United States v Comstock 560 U S 126 2010 Text of United States v Comstock 560 U S 126 2010 is available from Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Comstock amp oldid 1175151262, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
