560 U.S. 126 (2010)
In 2006 Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 4248.1
The statute permits the Attorney General to certify to a federal district court that a person in Bureau of Prisons custody has previously engaged in sexually violent conduct or child molestation.2 The person must currently suffer from a serious mental illness or disorder.3 As a result the person is sexually dangerous to others because he would have serious difficulty refraining from such conduct if released.4
Upon filing of the certification the individual's release from prison is automatically stayed pending a hearing at which the Government must prove the statutory conditions by clear and convincing evidence.5 The individual is entitled to counsel, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses, and to cross-examine Government witnesses.6
In November and December 2006 the Government filed § 4248 certification proceedings in the Eastern District of North Carolina against five individuals then in federal custody.7 Three had previously pleaded guilty in federal court to possession of child pornography.8 A fourth had pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor.9 The fifth had been charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor but found mentally incompetent to stand trial.10
The Government alleged that each was about to be released, had a qualifying prior sexual offense, and suffered from a mental condition rendering him sexually dangerous.11 Each of the five moved to dismiss the commitment proceeding, asserting among other claims that Congress lacked power under Article I to enact the statute.12
The district court granted the motions, holding both that due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that Congress exceeded its Article I authority.13 The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the Article I ground alone.14 The Government petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted limited to the question of congressional authority under Article I.15 After the grant, the First and Eighth Circuits upheld the statute, creating a split with the Fourth Circuit.16
Whether Congress has authority under Article I of the Constitution to enact 18 U.S.C. § 4248?17
The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad authority to enact federal legislation that constitutes a means rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power, provided the means are appropriate, plainly adapted to a legitimate end, and not prohibited by the Constitution.18
Yes. Section 4248 is a modest addition to a longstanding federal statutory framework for the civil commitment of mentally ill and dangerous persons in federal custody that dates to 1855 and was expanded in 1949 and 1984.19
The five respondents were in Bureau of Prisons custody after federal convictions or charges for sexual offenses involving child pornography or abuse of a minor.20
The Government filed certifications alleging each met the statutory criteria of prior sexual misconduct, current serious mental illness, and resulting sexual dangerousness, automatically staying their release pending a hearing with full procedural protections.21
These facts establish that the statute operates only on individuals already subject to federal criminal jurisdiction and serves the custodial interest in protecting the public from dangers posed by federal prisoners, thereby satisfying means-ends rationality under the Necessary and Proper Clause as a rational means of implementing Congress's enumerated powers to criminalize conduct, imprison violators, and manage the federal prison system.22
Congress has authority under Article I of the Constitution to enact 18 U.S.C. § 4248.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment but cautioned that the Necessary and Proper Clause inquiry depends on the strength of the links to an enumerated power rather than the number of steps in the chain.24 He withheld assent from the majority's use of a rational-basis formulation drawn from due-process cases.25 He emphasized that federalism principles require consideration of whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised.26
He concluded that section 4248 is a discrete and narrow exercise of authority over persons already in federal custody that does not intrude upon the ordinary processes and powers of the States.27
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment on narrow grounds.28 He agreed that section 4248 is necessary and proper to carry into execution the enumerated powers supporting the federal criminal statutes under which the prisoners were convicted.29 This is because it protects the public from dangers created by the federal criminal justice and prison systems.
He stressed that many federal prisoners lack substantial ties to any State after lengthy incarceration.30 No State is willing to assume the financial burden of civil commitment.31 This makes federal action appropriate under the Clause.32
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas dissented.33 He argued that section 4248 executes no enumerated power because the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes only laws that carry into execution one or more of the federal powers enumerated in the Constitution.34 He maintained that the statute's focus on protecting society from sexual violence is a traditional state function under the police power.35
He also argued that the five-factor test adopted by the majority cannot be reconciled with McCulloch or two centuries of precedent.36 He concluded that the statute is therefore unconstitutional.37