Supreme Court hears arguments over committing sex offenders after their sentences are complete

Justices hear case on releasing sex offenders

WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices on Tuesday seemed open to the idea of continuing to let the federal government indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their federal prison terms are complete.

“You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people, so the government has some responsibility, doesn’t it?” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Lower courts have said the federal government cannot do this. But in arguments before the high court Tuesday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the government has a responsibility to ensure that sexual predators are not turned back onto the streets.

The federal government’s responsibility and power extends to ensuring “those people who have been in custody are released responsibly,” Kagan said.

Kagan compared the government’s power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease. “Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here,” she said.

Several justices seemed to agree with her. “It seems to me that the constitutional answer is the same in this statute as in the case of somebody who incurs a very communicable disease and the government wants to prevent him from infecting the community,” said Justice John Paul Stevens.

Federal public defender G. Alan DuBois (due-BWAH) said this practice would overstep official bounds when it comes to sentencing people for federal crimes. The federal government “doesn’t have the power to detain individuals as a result of their mental illness based on the fear that they are going to go out and commit a crime,” he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with him, saying that to allow the federal government to indefinitely hold dangerous people because states won’t do it “is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything.”

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

In April, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.