The United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Comstock, decided May 17, 2010, that the federal prisoners can be detained after their prison sentence expires if they are deemed sexually dangerous. Under federal law, the federal government can file a petition to detain a federal prisoner after the expiration of a prison sentence if the Government can show by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner is engaged in sexually violent activity or child molestation in the past and suffers from a serious mental illness.
The defendant's challenged the law as unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including that the law imposed additional punishment not authorized by the statute under which the defendant was convicted, violated double jeopardy, due process and exceeded the scope of the powers granted to Congress under the Constitution.
In upholding the law as Constitutional, the Supreme Court relied upon the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, reasoning that the Constitution grants to Congress the powers to enact laws necessary for the public welfare.
The Court stressed that the Constitution did not give Congress explicit authority to create federal prisons, but they were created in order enforce federal law. Further, the court stated that as the custodian of federal prisoners, Congress has the authority to enact laws to deal with the dangers that federal prisoners may pose to the community. Accordingly, the court upheld the law as within the implied powers of Congress.
The flaw in the court's reasoning is that although the Court has relied upon the necessary and proper clause to uphold other acts of Congress, the Bill of Rights specifically deals with rights of criminal defendants, precluding a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense and the due process clause which prohibits a defendant from being convicted unless the Government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Though the goal of Congress is appropriate, to protect the public, a defendant is essentially being punished for the same offense twice. The Double Jeopardy Clause requires that a defendant only be punished once for the same offense and due process requires that a defendant receive a sentence that is within the statutory maximum penalty for that offense. Essentially, a defendant is being subject to an enhanced punishment that is not limited by any criminal statute and that was unknown at the time of any trial or plea agreement.
Justice Thomas dissented from the court decision, arguing that the statute exceeded the enumerated powers of Congress. Justice Thomas' dissent is the better reasoned opinion; however, this issue is likely to reappear on the courts' docket as the majority opinion indicated that it was not addressing the defendant's equal protection or due process claims, which the court stated that the defendant's could pursue those claims on remand to the lower court.
