From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. Comstock Full case name United States, Petitioner v. Graydon Earl Comstock, Jr., et al. Docket no. 08-1224 Citations 560 U.S. 126 (more Prior 507 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D.N.C. 2007); affirmed, 551 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2009); cert . granted, 557 U.S. 918 (2009). Subsequent On remand, 627 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2010). The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Majority Breyer, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor Concurrence Kennedy (in judgment) Concurrence Alito (in judgment) Dissent Thomas, joined by Scalia (all but Part III–A–1–b)
United States v. Comstock Supreme Court of the United States , which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody.[ 1] Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act , was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution . The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.[ 2] [ 3] [ 4] [ 5] [ 6] [ 7] [ 8]
Six days before Graydon Earl Comstock was to have completed a 37-month sentence for receiving child pornography , Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales certified that Comstock was a sexually dangerous person . The law that Attorney General Gonzales was applying was ruled unconstitutional by lower courts on the grounds it exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority.
Argued in January 2010 by Solicitor General Elena Kagan , the position of the United States was that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to enact the law.[ 9]
Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which decided that the Necessary and Proper Clause permitted Congress to enact such a provision. John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer's opinion. Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Antonin Scalia joined in all but Part III–A–1–b.[ 2]
Five considerations [ edit ] The Court said: "We base this conclusion on five considerations, taken together."
The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to enact laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other enumerated powers.
The statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related statutes that have existed for many decades.
The statute in question reasonably extends the longstanding policy to cover the mentally ill and sexually dangerous persons already in federal custody.
The statute properly accounts for state interests by ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the statute" whenever a state requests.
The statute is narrowly tailored to address only the legitimate federal interest.
^ JESSE J. HOLLAND, Court: Sexually dangerous can be kept in prison , Associated Press . Retrieved 5-16-2010.
^ a b "08-1224 United States v. Comstock (05/17/2010)" (PDF) . Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved June 12, 2010 .^ "Predators and the Constitution" . WSJ.com. January 19, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010 .^ "Sex offenders behind bars: How long?" . Los Angeles Times . January 18, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010 .^ Kirkland, Michael. "U.S. Supreme Court: Throwing away the key for sex offenders?" . UPI.com. Retrieved June 12, 2010 . ^ Mears, Bill (May 17, 2010). "Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely" . CNN. Retrieved June 12, 2010 . ^ Stohr, Greg (May 17, 2010). "Sex-Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U.S. High Court" . BusinessWeek. Retrieved June 12, 2010 . [dead link ^ Biskupic, Joan (May 18, 2010). "Sex offenders may be confined past sentences" . Usa Today. Retrieved June 12, 2010 .^ Justices Rule That Sex Offenders May Be Held After Their Sentences End , nytimes.com, by Adam Liptak, May 17, 2010
Dormant Commerce Clause
Brown v. Maryland Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. Cooley v. Board of Wardens Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Swift & Co. v. United States George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. Edwards v. California Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Reeves, Inc. v. Stake Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke Maine v. Taylor Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy Granholm v. Heald United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Others
Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793 Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Stewart v. Abend Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Tasini Eldred v. Ashcroft MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick Golan v. Holder Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Allen v. Cooper Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Other copyright cases Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde United States v. General Electric Co. United States v. Univis Lens Co. Altvater v. Freeman Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Brulotte v. Thys Co. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. Graham v. John Deere Co. United States v. Adams Brenner v. Manson Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. Gottschalk v. Benson United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. Dann v. Johnston Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. Parker v. Flook Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diehr Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Dickinson v. Zurko Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Bilski v. Kappos Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Kappos v. Hyatt Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Gunn v. Minton Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Other trademark cases
