It Isn’t Always Good to be Young

By L. Michael Golden; June 2001

     This January, in a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Washington’s sexual predator commitment law.  See, Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001).  Although the case puts up some obstacles to the several cases that are still pending against the State of Washington regarding the operation of the Special Commitment Center (SCC), which houses those committed under the state’s civil commitment law, the case does not solve all of the state’s problems.

     The Young case started when Andre Brigham Young (whose parents may have had a sense of humor) filed a petition for writ of habeus corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  In 1995, U.S. District Court Judge Coughenour granted the writ, concluding that the state’s civil commitment law violated due process, was criminal in nature rather than civil, and violated double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees.  The state appealed and, while that appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kansas v. Hedricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997), holding Kansas’ civil commitment scheme, which is based on Washington'’ statute, constitutional.

As a result of the Hendricks decision, the Ninth Circuit sent Young back for reconsideration.  This time, the petition was denied and it was Mr. Young that appealed.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that although Washington’s civil commitment scheme was civil in nature and therefore lawful under Hendricks, it could be challenged as being criminal in nature in its application to Mr. Young.  This opened a Pandora’s Box of potential challenges by SCC residents; the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

     The Supreme Court’s holding in Young, read most narrowly, is that a law that has been found to be civil in nature cannot be challenged as being criminal in its application.  Thus, habeus petitions will not be entertained on that basis.  However, the Young court does not go on to review whether Washington’s civil commitment law will withstand a direct challenge on other bases, and it does not foreclose such a challenge.  Given recent developments in Florida and Arizona state courts, there is reason to believe that another challenge to the civil commitment law is just around the corner.