Opinion ID: 2771203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Which Level of Judicial Scrutiny Applies?

Text: ¶40 Knipfer17 argues that strict scrutiny applies to the failure to apply the Daubert evidentiary standard to expert testimony in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial because 16 A law that implicates a fundamental right is not necessarily subject to strict scrutiny. Whether strict scrutiny applies sometimes depends on the degree to which the law burdens a fundamental right. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (strict scrutiny applies to 'severe' restrictions on the fundamental right to vote, and rational basis review applies to 'reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions' on that right) (citations omitted); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386-88 (1978) (rational basis review applies to reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with the fundamental right to marry, and strict scrutiny applies to a law that significantly interferes with that right) (citations omitted). 17 The court of appeals held that Alger conceded that rational basis review applies. See Alger, 352 Wis. 2d 145, ¶25. Our strict scrutiny and rational basis analysis applies to Alger and Knipfer alike. 23 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 Chapter 980 commitment implicates his fundamental right to freedom from bodily restraint. Knipfer relies on cases where courts assumed, without deciding that strict scrutiny applied to claims challenging the constitutionality of aspects of Chapter 980 commitment. See State v. West, 2011 WI 83, ¶91, 336 Wis. 2d 578, 800 N.W.2d 929; State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 321, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995); State v. Williams, 2001 WI App 263, ¶11, 249 Wis. 2d 1, 637 N.W.2d 791. Knipfer also relies on Foucha v. Louisiana, where the Supreme Court stated that involuntary civil commitment implicates an individual's fundamental right to freedom from bodily restraint. Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992). Knipfer does not argue that a suspect class has been discriminated against. ¶41 The State argues that rational basis review applies because the failure to apply the Daubert evidentiary standard to expert testimony in Knipfer's Chapter 980 discharge petition trial does not implicate a fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class. The State relies on Mary F.-R., where we applied rational basis review to a challenge against the use of a non-unanimous six-person jury in a Wis. Stat. ch. 51 commitment hearing. ¶42 We conclude that rational basis review applies to Alger's and Knipfer's constitutional claims because the failure to apply the Daubert evidentiary standard to expert testimony in a Chapter 980 discharge petition trial does not implicate a fundamental right. Our decision in Mary F.-R. is instructive. In that case, a circuit court ordered Mary F.-R. to be 24 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 for treatment for her mental illness after a six-person jury unanimously found that she qualified for such commitment. Mary F.-R., 351 Wis. 2d 273, ¶¶2, 6. Mary F.-R. appealed the commitment order. Before this court, she argued that § 51.20(11) violated her right to equal protection because it authorized Chapter 51 commitment based on a six-person non-unanimous jury verdict. Id., ¶2. Her equal protection claim rested on the fact that potential Wis. Stat. ch. 51 committed persons were treated differently than potential Wis. Stat. ch. 980 committed persons because the latter persons had a statutory right to a unanimous 12-person jury at their commitment hearings. Id., ¶¶1-2. Mary F.-R. argued that this court should apply strict scrutiny to § 51.20(11) because Chapter 51 commitment implicates her fundamental right to freedom from bodily restraint. Id., ¶36. ¶43 We held that rational basis review was the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny. Id., ¶38. We recognized that liberty is a fundamental right, id. (citing Foucha, 504 U.S. at 86), and involuntary civil commitment is a 'significant deprivation of liberty.' Id. (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979)). However, rational basis review applied because Mary F.–R.'s challenge relate[d] only to the jury procedures available for initial commitment hearings under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 and not to the use of involuntary commitments in general. Id. There is no right to a 12–person jury in civil proceedings such as here. Id. (citing State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59, ¶¶17-19, 235 Wis. 2d 486, 611 N.W.2d 727). Mary F.-R. 25 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 did not argue that the challenged legislation discriminated against a suspect class. Id. ¶44 Like in Mary F.-R., rational basis review applies in the present cases because the challenged legislation does not implicate the fundamental right to freedom from bodily restraint and there is no fundamental right to a particular evidentiary standard. Like Mary F.-R., Knipfer does not challenge the use of involuntary commitments in general. Id. Instead, Knipfer challenges the unavailability of the Daubert evidentiary standard in his Chapter 980 discharge petition trial. Knipfer has no constitutional right to have the Daubert evidentiary standard apply. Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 616 (7th Cir. 2010). Knipfer argues that strict scrutiny applies because evidentiary standards . . . directly impact the substantive nature of the evidence that can ultimately be submitted and considered by the finder of fact. If Knipfer were correct, then every evidentiary ruling in a Chapter 980 hearing or trial could be subject to strict scrutiny. Precedent and the fact that deference is due to a circuit court's evidentiary ruling would militate otherwise. See State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, ¶35, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90 (stating that a circuit court's evidentiary ruling, even in a Chapter 980 proceeding, is generally reviewed under a deferential standard). Although Chapter 980 involuntary commitment implicates the right to freedom from bodily restraint, the availability of the Daubert evidentiary standard in a Chapter 980 proceeding does not implicate that right so as to trigger strict scrutiny. See Mary 26 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 F.-R., 351 Wis. 2d 273, ¶38. There is no right to a particular evidentiary ruling in a Chapter 980 discharge petition trial. ¶45 Knipfer's reasons for distinguishing Mary F.-R. are unpersuasive. First, he argues that Mary F.-R. is distinguishable because the Daubert evidentiary standard, unlike a six-person, non-unanimous jury, directly impacts the right to physical liberty that is at stake in a commitment proceeding. He contends that the evidence considered by a jury more directly impacts the outcome of a commitment proceeding than the size or unanimity of a jury does. We reject this basis for distinguishing Mary F.-R. Knipfer does not persuade us that the pre-Daubert standard more directly impacts his liberty interest in a discharge trial than Mary F.-R. being tried by a nonunanimous, six-person jury in an original commitment trial. Indeed, the jury standard at issue in Mary F.-R. is more closely related to the liberty interest at stake in an original commitment proceeding than in a discharge trial. Moreover, that jury standard, under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11), applies only to commitment proceedings brought under Wis. Stat. ch. 51, whereas the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence which is generally applicable in all proceedings, whether civil or criminal. ¶46 Knipfer's other ground for distinguishing Mary F.-R. and applying strict scrutiny is that the law at issue in Mary F.-R. differentiated between two groups that were not similarly situated (Chapter 51 committed persons and Chapter 980 committed persons), whereas the law at issue here differentiates between two groups that are similarly situated (persons whose Chapter 27 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 980 commitment was initiated before February 1, 2011, and persons whose Chapter 980 commitment was initiated on or after that date). We also disagree with this argument for applying strict scrutiny because strict scrutiny does not apply if neither a fundamental right is implicated nor a suspect class is discriminated against. See Smith, 323 Wis. 2d 377, ¶12. A court determines whether differently-treated groups are similarly situated and hence, whether equal protection is violated, by applying a particular level of judicial scrutiny. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-18 (1982); Mary F.-R., 351 Wis. 2d 273, ¶55 ('[W]hen properly understood and applied, similarly situated is another way of stating the fundamental values of the Equal Protection Clause.') (quoting Giovanna Shay, Similarly Situated, 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 581, 615 (2011)); Smith, 323 Wis. 2d 377, ¶15 (The equal protection clause . . . 'is designed to assure that those who are similarly situated will be treated similarly.') (quoting Treiber v. Knoll, 135 Wis. 2d 58, 68, 398 N.W.2d 756 (1987)). ¶47 Knipfer's reliance on cases where courts applied strict scrutiny in the Chapter 980 context requires further explanation. The cases relied upon by Knipfer challenged procedural aspects of Chapter 980 commitment which directly impacted one's right to freedom from bodily restraint, whereas the application of a particular rule of evidence is much further removed from that direct impact on restraint of freedom. See West, 336 Wis. 2d 578, ¶5 (challenging law that placed burden of proof on committed person seeking supervised release); Post, 197 28 Nos. 2013AP225 & 2013AP578 Wis. 2d at 292-93 (challenging Chapter 980 commitment in general); Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶2-3 (challenging prohibition on filing a petition for supervised release within first 18 months of commitment). Further, the courts in those cases assumed, without deciding that strict scrutiny was the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for those equal protection claims. See West, 336 Wis. 2d 578, ¶¶91-99; Post, 197 Wis. 2d at 321; Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 1, ¶11.18 Such an assumption is hardly a conclusion that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard in the cases at issue. In the present cases, rational basis review is appropriate because the Daubert standard is a generally applicable rule of evidence that does not directly impact one's right to freedom from bodily restraint. See Mary F.-R., 351 Wis. 2d 273, ¶38. ¶48 In sum, we hold that rational basis review applies to Knipfer's equal protection and substantive due process claims and to Alger's equal protection claim.