Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) Facts The state of Kansas passed the Sexually Violent Predator Act providing for the civil commitment of people who, due to mental abnormality or personality disorder, are likely to engage in sexually violent acts. The first opportunity for the state to apply the statute was against Hendricks who was about to be released from a long prison sentence. He had been convicted for multiple sexual crimes against children, and the state authorities, who believed he would resume his criminal activities after his release, petitioned the court to have him civilly committed pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Procedural History The trial court, after holding a hearing pursuant to the statute and a trial at Hendricks's request, determined that Hendricks was dangerous and granted the state's petition. Hendricks appealed to the state supreme court, arguing that the statute violated the Ex Post Fact Law, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitutions. The Kansas supreme court found the statute unconstitutional because its precommitment condition of "mental abnormality" did not satisfy due process requirement of "mental illness." Kansas appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and Hendriks filed a cross-appeal petition containing the ex post facto and double jeopardy claims. Issue/Question: The question before the Supreme Court was whether Kansas' Sexual Predator Act violated Hendricks rights under the United States Constitution. Holding/Answer to Question: The Supreme Court held that Kansas had a legitimate interest in civilly committing individuals who pose a danger to the public health and safety, and the Sexually Violent Predator Act didn't violate Hendricks's constitutional rights. Majority Opinion's Reasoning: The statute didn't violate the Due Process clause because it provides procedural protections such as a hearing, before the trial court, giving the individual an opportunity to demonstrate that he is not dangerous and a yearly review of the individual's condition to determine the need to keep him confined. In addition, the statute required more than potential future dangerousness; the person had to suffer from some condition that makes him or her potentially dangerous. The statute didn't violate the Ex Post Facto or Double Jeopardy clause because it is not a criminal statute. Judgement: The Supreme Court Reversed the Kansas supreme court's decision