DC- Chief justice blocks release of sex offenders

Interesting action today: First see SCOTUS Blog, then commentary and court order below:

See Also:
Sex Crimes
Sentencing Law & Policy

4-3-2009 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts has granted the Obama administration's request to the Supreme Court to block the release of certain sex offenders who have completed their federal prison terms.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va.(USA-v-Comstock, 1-9-09, No. 06-7671), had earlier invalidated a law allowing the indefinite commitment of "sexually dangerous" prison inmates.

Roberts, in an order Friday, says as many as 77 inmates can continue to be held at a prison in North Carolina at least until the high decides whether to hear the administration's appeal of a ruling by the federal appeals court.

The Justice Department said the sex offenders could have been released as early as next week without the court's intervention.

If they were released, it would be in a state where there is a civil commitment hearing as the Bureau of Prisons has been moving these offenders to states where civil commitment is possible. Therefore, a state hearing would be necessary before release. Something is fishy here, someone is jumping the gun...

"That would pose a significant risk to the public and constitute a significant harm to the interests of the United States," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote in court papers filed Friday.

It is possible, however, that state laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders could be used to re-imprison the men.

Therein is the problem with Chief Justice Roberts' Order, if there is a remedy then the appeal is not ripe for the court to hear. In other words, if those states have not heard these cases (civil commitment hearings) then what gives the US Supreme court the right to jump in this mess EARLY?

The administration is appealing a ruling of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing for indefinite commitment of sex offenders.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that they would be at risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.

This could be the problem, the government has delayed releasing these men -over two years held without a hearing- and now these men would have to be released because of the untimely action of the government. Well, in other similar cases, the court said TOUGH LUCK release the men. Its kinda like a right to a speedy trial... This all sounds too familiar like what other detainees were held where was that???

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006.

AWA (i.e. Congress) may have authorized civil commitment, but there is a little problem called the 10th Amendment. i.e. the Federal Government cannot do what the U.S. Constitution says is the job of the state!

The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions were not affected by the ruling.

The administration is arguing that the law does not violate the Constitution and was well within Congress' power. ..News Source.. by AP


==========================================
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08A863 (08-1224)
UNITED STATES, Applicant,
v.
GRAYDON EARL COMSTOCK, JR., ET AL.

O R D E R

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of the Solicitor General,

IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, case No. 07-7671, is hereby stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. See Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 468 U. S. 1323 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers) (“The presumption of constitutionality which attaches to every Act of Congress is not merely a factor to be considered in evaluating success on the merits, but an equity to be considered in favor of applicants in balancing hardships”). Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

/s/ John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2009.