8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of class-action litigation concerning Missouri’s sex offense civil commitment program in light of Karsjens.
Kansas Supreme Court affirming the commitment of an individual who was the subject of a second SVP petition in the wake of technical violations of his supervision, rejecting res judicata, collateral estoppel and Due Process arguments.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion finding that civil commitment center’s ban on committee’s publication and subsequent page-limitations did not offend First Amendment rights.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that district court lacked the authority to dismiss a commitment proceeding against someone who was not competent to stand trial, and that furthermore such a commitment proceeding would not offend Due Process protections.
Virginia Supreme Court holding that Due Process does not require the state appoint expert witnesses for indigent respondents in the context of SVP hearings.
8th Circuit Opinion affirming the dismissal of an equal protection and gender discrimination claim brought by a group of civilly committed individuals in Iowa’s SOCC facility.
North Dakota Supreme Court reversing a trial court finding that an individual remained sexually dangerous due to bouts of non-sexual aggression.
South Carolina Supreme Court holding that there is both a statutory and constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in SVP proceedings.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Opinion holding that individual who state alleges meets the criteria for an SVP, but whom neither examiner concludes is an SVP, is entitled to release pending trial.
1st Circuit Court of Appeals case affirming in part and reversing in part complex litigation involving Massachusetts Treatment Center, finding no Due Process violations in Appelants cases.
California Court of Appeal opinion finding that right to Speedy Trial was violated in case of man who was held for 17 years without civil commitment hearing due to variety of factors.
Civil rights lawsuit brought by individuals civilly committed in Iowa challenging constitutionality of continued detention. District court dismissed various claims in light of Karsjens decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that, despite underlying federal conviction being vacated, federal civil commitment order was still valid.
After remand from Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit addresses Due Process challenge to civil commitment evidentiary standard, holding that it is not unconstitutional in light of prior decisions distinguishing civil and criminal proceedings.
Several individuals confined to North Dakota’s hospital as sexually dangerous individuals filed § 1983 suit alleging various unconstitutional violations. In ongoing litigation, District Court has thus far ruled that state statutory scheme is facially unconstitutional in that it placed no affirmative duty on state authorities to discharge those who no longer met criteria.
United States Supreme Court case, within the context of analysis of the Necessary and Proper clause, holding that federal statute with authorizes the civil commitment of persons convicted of sexual offenses is constitutional.
Seventh Circuit affirming dismissal of habeas corpus petition by civilly committed individual who alleged, inter alia, that diagnoses of paraphilia and personality disorder NOS as well as failure to specifically find lack of volitional control by committing court violated constitutional rights.
Seventh Circuit Court of appeals affirming federal district court’s denial of writ habeas corpus from petitioner who was civilly committed as SVP in Wisconsin on the basis of diagnoses of paraphilia NOS and antisocial personality disorder.
Eighth Circuit case reversing federal district court finding, in context of federal § 1983 lawsuit, that Minnesota’s civil commitment program for those convicted of sexual offenses unconstitutionally deprived plaintiffs of due process rights under federal constitution.
United States Supreme Court decision holding that state civil commitment scheme did not violate Due Process, Ex Post Facto, or Double Jeopardy constitutional provisions.