Legal Document

531 U.S. 250121 S.Ct. 727148 L.Ed.2d 734 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.MARK SELING, SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER, PETITIONERv.ANDRE BRIGHAM YOUNG No. 99-1185. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued October 31, 2000 Decided January 17, 2001 Syllabus Washington State's Community Protection Act 1990 (Act) authorizes civil commitment "sexually violent predators," persons who suffer from a mental abnormality personality disorder makes them likely engage predatory acts sexual violence. Respondent Young confined under at Special Commitment Center (Center), for which petitioner superintendent. Young's challenges his state court proved largely unsuccessful. then instituted habeas action 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking release confinement. The District initially granted writ, concluding was unconstitutional. While superintendent's appeal pending, this decided Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 346, holding similar scheme, Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act, on its face, met substantive due process requirements, nonpunitive, and thus did not violate Double Jeopardy Ex Post Facto Clauses. Ninth Circuit remanded reconsideration light Hendricks. denied petition. In particular, determined that, because civil, double jeopardy ex post facto claims must fail. reversed ruling. "linchpin" claims, reasoned, whether punitive "as applied" Young. read Hendricks preclude possibility could as applied. Reasoning actual confinement conditions divest facially valid statute label upon showing by clearest proof statutory scheme effect, case determine rendered applied Held: An found cannot deemed single individual violation Clauses provide cause release. Pp. 9_16. (a) obtain through an "as-applied" challenge grounds. strikingly to, and, fact, pattern for, upheld Among things, there principle determining nature begin with reference text legislative history. See U.S., 360_369. Subsequently, expressly disapproved evaluating Act's effect individual, holding, instead, courts focus variety factors considered relation required override intent conclude denominated purpose effect. Hudson 522 93, 100. With mind, Circuit's analysis rejected fundamentally flawed. does deny seriousness some respondent's allegations. Nor express view how allegations would bear first instance Washington's civil. Here, however, evaluates assumption held acknowledged. agrees prove unworkable. Such never conclusively resolve particular thereby prevent final determination scheme's validity Confinement fixed event, but extends over time change. features affect evaluated it punitive, remains no less true query answered definitively. A altered based merely vagaries authorizing statute's implementation. comport precedents schemes. See, e.g., Allen Illinois, 478 364, 373_374. cases presented question issue whereas permitting as-applied invite end run around Court's decision when Court. 9_13. (b) Today's mean respondent others committed sexually predators have remedy alleged treatment regime Center. gives right adequate care individualized treatment. It operating accordance law remedy. Those also remain competent adjudicate schemes arising Federal Constitution. Because has nature, designed incapacitate treat, requires duration reasonable committed. E.g., Foucha Louisiana, 504 71, 79. Finally, notes 42 1983 pending against operates injunction requiring take steps improve conditions. 13_15. (c) occasion consider relates constitutional challenges, such process, extent look implementation nature. Whether been threshold challenges. Allen, supra. However, squarely addressed relevance determination, need resolved here. 15_16. 192 F.3d 870, remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT O'Connor, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, Thomas, judgment. Stevens, dissenting opinion. Opinion Justice O'Connor 1 Wash. Rev. Code §71.09.010 et seq. (1992). Respondent, Andre Brigham Young, predator After unsuccessful, he had already re 122 2d 1, 857 P.2d 989 (1993) (en banc), 346 (1997). Appeals nevertheless concluded being him Clauses, evidentiary hearing. 2 * 3 response citizens' concerns about laws procedures regarding offenders. One provisions (1992 Supp. 2000). defines someone convicted of, charged with, crime violence suffers person if secure facility. §71.09.020(1) (Supp. reaches prisoners, juveniles, incompetent stand trial, guilty reason insanity, offense recent overt act. §71.09.030. Generally, appears released confinement, prosecuting attorney files petition alleging predator. Ibid. That filing triggers charging trying predator, during afforded panoply protections including counsel experts (paid State indigency), probable hearing, trial judge jury individual's option. §§71.09.040_71.09.050. At bears burden beyond doubt §71.09.060(1). 4 Upon finding control, care, custody department social health services. Once confined, §71.09.080(2). entitled annual examination condition. §71.09.070. If indicates condition so changed violence, officials authorize conditional discharge. §71.09.090(1). hearing again proving safe large. independently §71.09.090(2). show finds believe longer dangerous, full will proof. 5 provides procedure restrictive alternative §71.09.090. Before ordering release, find treated certified offender provider, specific course treatment, housing exists sufficiently protect community, willing comply supervision requirements. §71.09.092. Conditional review until unconditionally released. §§71.09.096, 71.09.098. B 6 six rapes three decades. App. Pet. Cert. 33a. scheduled prison most conviction 1990. day prior commit Id., 32a. 7 testified reoffend way predict accurately reoffend. called expert testified, records, suffered severe otherwise specified primarily paranoid antisocial features, paraphilia, classified either paraphilia sadism (rape). generally American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic Statistical Manual Mental Disorders 522_523, 530, 532, 634, 645_646, 673 (4th ed. 1994). expert's constituted Act. condition, combination disorder, span crimes, recidivism, persistent denial, lack empathy remorse, more than further acts. victims testified. unanimously 8 another appealed their commitments court, arguing violated Jeopardy, Facto, Due Process, Equal major respects, constitutional. banc). To equal protection principles, those rulings reflected subsequent amendments Part I_A, 9 reasoned claimants' hinged criminal Following precedents, examined language history, scheme. legislature clearly intended create both turned examine impact criminal. concluded, concerned treating current abnormality, protecting society associated rather culpability. distinguished goals incapacitation goal punishment. legitimate claimants failed contrary. 2d, 18_25, P.2d, 996_1000. 10 spawned several federal two mention. Richard Turay, suit Stat. §1979, unconstitutional inadequate 1994, constitutionally 64_68. ordered bring institution up standards, appointing Master monitor progress currently injunction. Turay Seling, 108 F. 1148 (WD Brief Petitioner 8_9. 11 claiming, among Clause. ruled Turay's valid. 139 379, 986 790 (1999) explained 415, 869. noted recently nearly identical face. theory jeopardy, reasoning claim asking itself 416_417, 810 (citing 93 (1997)). proper violations §1983 damages injunctive relief. 420, 812. C 12 brings us after unsuccessful superintendent contended illegal. He sought immediate guarantees Weston, 898 744 1995). appealed. (1997), 38 13 On remand, part affirmed part. 870 (1999). ruling requirement illness dangerousness justify 876. left undisturbed conclusion meets procedural guarantees, rejection proceedings. 876_877. seek writ certiorari affirming these accordingly, issues 14 873. F.3d, 874. 15 reviewed were process. 875. seven years, placed detainees, even prisoners. Center, located wholly within perimeter larger Department Corrections (DOC) facility, relied DOC host essential services, library medical food, security. More recently, claimed, role increased include daily security "walk-throughs." restrictions reasonably related nonpunitive goal, residents abused, rooms, subjected random searches rooms units, excessive 16 incompatible purpose. policy videotaping therapy sessions withholding privileges refusal submit housed units according litigation, inappropriate program. still lacked sex providers. court-appointed resident advocate psychologist report many come suspect managed punish confine individuals life without hope setting. Amended Petition Writ Habeas Corpus, Supplemental Remand, Motion Alter Judgment 4_5, 8_9, 11_12, 15, 20, 24_26, C94_480C Wash.), Record, Doc. Nos. 57, 155, 167. 17 "[b]y [the Act] applied, facts which, proved, entitle relief." 18 certiorari, 529 1017 (2000), conflict between Compare (1999), II 19 As acknowledged, we proceed understanding four Terms ago patterned Washington's. 259 Kan. 246, 249, 912 129, 131 (1996). one construction. 361 368 (1986)). ascertain establish reject legislature's manifest only where party challenging negate intention. Ward, 448 242, 248_249 (1980)). We satisfy respect factors: implicate retribution deterrence; convictions used evidence proceedings, prerequisite confinement; scienter person; function deterrent; although safeguards context, they alter character 361_365. 20 provided 363_364. aware segregated unit system. 368. facility dangerous community. 363. noted, essentially same involuntarily hospitals. Moreover, necessarily indefinite duration. 364. observed addition public, predators. 365_368. acknowledged all treatable. For untreatable conditions, bar interest public treatable well 366. Our "nonpunitive remove[d] Hendricks' claims." 369. 21 Since deciding reaffirmed Hudson, involved monetary penalties occupational debarment, individual. Instead, evaluate " `considered face' "; 100 (quoting Kennedy Mendoza&nbhyph;Martinez, 372 144, 169 (1963)). 22 turn Appeals' raise grounds too restrictive, system result Respondent's respects like incapacitate, punish. 362_368. Nevertheless, do serious. 23 hold agree 30; Reply 9. Unlike fine, event. notes, statute. 24 contends comports precedents. points out past. 11_16, 29 supra, 363; Reno Flores, 507 292, 301_302 (1993); Salerno, 481 739, 747_748 (1987); 373_374 (1986); Schall Martin, 467 253, 269_273 (1984)). 25 All cases, punitive. Permitting circumstances direct attack 26 judgment, takes our `by own terms' _ terms all." Post, 2. respectfully disagree. "adequate treatment," §71.09.080(2) 2000), silent source complaints, see 7_8. Thomas next incorrectly assume instead viewing `otherwise civil,' `on face.' (emphasis added J.). However described, turns claimed "otherwise" "facially" relying decisions. 27 dissent, Stevens argues "incorrectly assum[e]" "necessarily civil," post, 2, reached very assumption. recognized Contrary dissent's characterization case, purport undermine allegations, substantiated, sufficient refute require authority. decide below. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Epstein, 516 367, 379 III today states authority 2000); 14. acknowledges, fails fulfill duty, action. Tr. Oral Arg. 6, 10_11, 52. courts, above, treat. Accordingly, 79 (1992); Youngberg Romeo, 457 307, 324 (1982); Jackson Indiana, 406 715, 738 (1972). 30 note Western Washington. 6_7. adopt implement plan training hiring therapists; relations providers; program containing elements prevailing professional standards; develop programs; psychiatrist diagnosis offenders supervise staff. 67. assisted bringing into compliance published matter, meeting requirements 1154_1155. 31 concurring, irrelevant unless interpreted By contrast, gain "full knowledge effects statute." 3. 32 (1997) (double facto); 739 (1987) (due process); 364 (1986) (Fifth Amendment privilege self-incrimination). Whatever suggest endorse approach render inquiry "effects statute," 3, completely open ended. refused parties entered consent decree 301. presumed decree. anecdotal histories statistical study insufficient regulatory 272. notwithstanding inherent difficulty ascertaining predicting future events. 33 34 judgment therefore reversed, proceedings consistent 35 ordered. 36 whom Souter joins, concurring. 37 I statute, "found punitive" purposes Ante, 15. observes "no nature." write separately dissociate myself implication reserved point question. regard since, years ago, (based petitioner), yet making "in instance." narrow (which, unlike one, involve imposition confinement), consideration "first instance" extend implementation, limited impositions "not event," ante, 11. That, peculiar limitation, since "fixed events" fine can, acquire penal aspects-exemplified allegedly size fines, availability reduction "good-faith" violations, 97_98, 104. leave room limitation. petitioners assessed considering aforementioned fines. flatly contention, support Halper, 490 435 (1989). said, erroneously "significant departure" jurisprudence, "to `asses[s] sanctions imposed,' 447, than, [v. Mendoza-Martinez, 144 (1963),] demanded, `statute what amounted sanction, [id.], 169." 101. factors, `must face,' 100, quoting (1963). "[t]he fact petitioners' `good faith' amount penalty imposed [a circumstance normally indicate assessment punitive] irrelevant, `the 104, 169. repeated, sure, `either effect,' 99 added), (1980), clear referred apparent face 39 short matter Clause purposes, vel non depends legislature;1 harsh executive "transfor[m] penalty," Rex Trailer 350 148, 154 (1956), compassionate can transform say relief administers fashion remedy, invalidate handiwork Clause, eliminate whatever excess administration contradicts character. When, here, issue, resort traditional unlawful action; fail, authoritatively interpret indeed pronounce protects becoming enmeshed sort intrusive local institutions best judiciary, least instance. And avoids invalidation statutes basis themselves, given opportunity, ultra vires. Only approach, seems me, accord sound reluctance initial interpreter law. Railroad Comm'n Tex. Pullman Co., 312 496, 500_501 (1941). 40 clarification, join NOTES: Since, wording Clause-"No shall pass Law," Const., Art. I, §10, cl.1 (emphases added)-leaves prohibition action, irrelevance is, anything, clearer. 41 "an divested nature" simply administrative agency's failure terms. i added). majority declines answer assumes civil-rather "otherwise "on face." (CA9 1997). holds opposite civil-"punitive," puts it-as explaining conclusion, reserves manner should court's 11, my view, first, implemented, second, distinction difference. 43 proceeding, important clarify case. adopts nomenclature refers challenge, see, 12, misleading. Typically "by terms, infringe[s] freedoms [a] case." Christian Echoes Nat. Ministry, Inc., 404 561, 565 (1972) (per curiam) (Washington Act), (1992), terms" him,1 all.2 44 "unworkable," it, prohibited criminal, "statute 101, (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted). disavowed 435, (1989), "actual imposed." 447 inconsistent asks him, argues, held, Hudson's reach case-monetary disbarment-and apply sanction contains indication whatsoever issue. contrary, elevate dispositive status criminal.3 nondispositive (stating "[w]hether involves affirmative disability restraint," 168 omitted)). Yet elevating exactly advances sanctions. rejects argument, fails. 45 implementation-based reviewing instance," (majority opinion), instance, place governing jurisprudence. precludes time. later change vary successful, serve implemented infirmities separate use majority's words, "based 46 suggests able actually agree. Cf. 101 (directing "). 13, improper implementation.4 prevail. 47 48 concern inquiry. concur violates below-first 18_23, 989, 996_999 (1993), Circuit, 874 (1999)-and Disagreeing characterization, 12. Even correct-which not, §71.09.070 (requiring examinations each person's conditions); 2000) treatment"); (discussing version Act)-the "mandate[s]" "conditions confinement" seeks. i. listed (1963), "useful guideposts": "(1) restraint; (2) historically regarded punishment; (3) comes play scienter; (4) operation promote aims punishment-retribution (5) behavior applies crime; (6) rationally connected assignable it; (7) assigned." 99_100, 168_169 alteration dissent "under analysis, construction," Although unclear me correct score, venturing certainly does. (holding `actual imposed' "); 2_3. dispel suggestion 9_10, opinion); (Stevens, dissenting), "none argue[d] people institutionalized conditions." viability significantly, months inquiries restricted "face" (or previous opinion)) door answering question, closed door. 49 dissenting. 50 imprisoned violating law, mentally ill, cured. detention properly viewed "criminal" "civil" context often considerable difficulty. (reversing, vote, invalidating Act); (upholding, Illinois' Dangerous Persons banc) dealing predators). 51 settled, complying demands Constitution detainee forward proof' [is] State's] intention' proceeding criminal." 369 (1980)) 105 consistently looked behind 361, 367_369; 269_271 (1984); 369, always solely 52 purports application prisoner. present Rather, introduce Corpus Remand 155. result, runs afoul Properly read, acknowledges resolving account effect.1 99. What taken respondent-one bypasses favor individual.2 101_102. 53 "is construction." opinion). essence, definitively all, except when, practical constitute requisite "clearest proof." quite wrong. punished twice previously labeled statute.3 54 detailed concerning absence starkly just detained pursuant laws, receive significantly worse treatment.4 correct, characterized purposes. opportunity proof" true. 55 dissent. concurrence, Scalia concludes rule 1. further, precluding "at time." 4. reasons set concurrences misread Hudson. "either effect." 367_369 (1997); (1986). prevail proves insofar him. everyone open. sum, sufficiency broadest advanced. improvement almost years. Their success little impact. Under now served following completion sentence itself.

Classification Label: 3