Statements (55)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:555_U._S._415
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil case
Details of the legal arguments presented Summary of the case's legal implications 08-1224 Part of the Supreme Court's history on civil rights. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced state and federal civil commitment laws
Rights of mentally ill individuals |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:legal_case
May 17, 2010 |
| gptkbp:docket_number |
08-1224
|
| gptkbp:historical_debate |
Constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Influenced future Supreme Court rulings on mental health
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Comstock
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Cited in later Supreme Court cases
|
| gptkbp:judges |
7-2
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutional review
Review of federal statutes |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Federal vs. state powers
Civil commitment of sexually dangerous individuals Context of post-9/11 legal changes Debate on mental health and civil rights Due process in civil commitment Expanded federal powers in mental health law Part of the legal framework for sex offender laws Set a standard for federal civil commitment cases Sex offender registration and notification |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Paul_D._Clement
gptkb:Michael_J._O'_Neill |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act
Influenced new laws on sexual offenders |
| gptkbp:notable_event |
Kansas v. Hendricks
United States v. Sykes |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Affirmed the lower court's decision
Important for understanding federal jurisdiction Affirmative ruling Used in law schools for teaching federalism Affected state policies on civil commitment Analyzed for implications on individual liberties Decision supported by a majority of justices Majority opinion supported federal authority Resulted in affirmation of federal law Significant in discussions of federalism Upheld civil commitment provisions |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Established federal jurisdiction over civil commitments
Federal government's authority to civilly commit individuals |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito
gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer Controversial among civil rights advocates Dissent argued against federal overreach |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Examined in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Clarified federal power in mental health cases
|