Citation network
Seling Vs. Young
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 31, 2000
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 250 (2000) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center V. YoungSearch
-
concluding that the Act was unconstitutional. While the superintendent's appeal was pending, this Court decided Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
to override legislative intent and conclude that an Act denominated civil is punitive in purpose or effect. Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
does not comport with precedents in which this Court evaluated the validity of confinement schemes. See, e. g., Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
confinement under the Act bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are committed. E. g., Foucha v. LouisianaSearch
-
this Court held a similar commitment scheme for sexually violent predators in Kansas to be civil on its face, Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a Special Master to monitor progress at the Center. The Center currently operates under an injunction. Turay v. SelingSearch
-
must be resolved by asking whether the Act itself is civil. Id., at 416-417, 986 P. 2d, at 810 (citing Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
than civil, and that it violated the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees of the Constitution. Young v. WestonSearch
-
F. Supp. 744 (WD Wash. 1995). The superintendent appealed. While the appeal was pending, this Court decided Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
The Washington Act is strikingly similar to a commitment scheme we reviewed 261 four Terms ago in Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
an Act is civil or punitive in nature is initially one of statutory construction. 521 U. S., at 361 (citing Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
is so punitive in either purpose or effect as to negate the State's intention. 521 U. S., at 361 (citing United States v. WardSearch
-
the civil or punitive nature of an Act must begin with reference to its text and legislative history. Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
case, and we do not decide claims that are not presented by the decision below. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. EpsteinSearch
-
of confinement under the Act bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are committed. Foucha v. LouisianaSearch
-
the matter, the District Court noted some progress at the Center in meeting the requirements of the injunction. Turay v. SelingSearch
-
confinement scheme is punitive has been the threshold question for some constitutional challenges. See, e. g., Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
See Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
features of the fines. We flatly rejected that contention, which found support in our prior decision in United States v. HalperSearch
-
U. S., at 100, quoting from Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
Hudson, supra, at 99 (emphasis added), quoting United States v. WardSearch
-
Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
with our sound and traditional reluctance to be the initial interpreter of state law. See Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. PullmanSearch
-
Young v. WestonSearch
-
United States v. ChristianSearch
-
Court, In re Young, 122 Wash. 2d 1, 18-23, 857 P. 2d 989, 996-999 (1993), and then by the Ninth Circuit, Young v. WestonSearch
-
as the majority puts it, ante, at 263, but also prohibited by our decision in Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 101, quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
internal quotation marks omitted). In so holding, we expressly disavowed the approach used in United States v. HalperSearch
-
U. S., at 101. One of these nondispos- 3 The Hudson Court referred to the seven factors listed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
in the context of federal constitutional issues is often a question of considerable difficulty. See Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
post, at 275 (STEVENS, J., dissenting), I note that Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
Allen, 478 U. S., at 369 (quoting United States v. WardSearch
-
U. S. 242 , 248-249 (1980)) (emphasis added). See also Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
C94-480C (WD Wash.), Record, Doc. Nos. 57, 155. As a result, Young in no 276 way runs afoul of Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
when, as a practical matter, 1 In his concurrence, JUSTICE SCALIA concludes that, under the rule of Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
either in purpose or effect.''' See Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
Syllabus Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center V. YoungSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial