Heller v. Doe
509 U.S. 312 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statutory scheme that provides different involuntary civil commitment procedures for mentally ill and mentally retarded individuals does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if the distinctions are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Allowing family members to participate as parties in such proceedings does not violate procedural due process if their involvement increases the accuracy of the adjudication.
Facts:
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky established separate statutory procedures for the involuntary civil commitment of individuals alleged to be mentally retarded and those alleged to be mentally ill.
- For individuals alleged to be mentally retarded, the state must prove the need for commitment by 'clear and convincing evidence'.
- For individuals alleged to be mentally ill, the state must prove the need for commitment 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
- In commitment proceedings for mental retardation, the law allows guardians and immediate family members of the individual to participate 'as if a party to the proceedings,' including rights to present evidence and appeal.
- This right for family and guardians to participate as parties is not granted in commitment proceedings for mental illness.
- A class of mentally retarded persons was involuntarily committed to Kentucky institutions under these statutory procedures.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of mentally retarded persons (respondents) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against the Kentucky Secretary of the Cabinet for Human Resources (petitioner).
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondents, holding that the statutory distinctions violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
- Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Kentucky's petition for certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Kentucky's statutory distinctions for involuntary commitment proceedings, which apply a lower burden of proof ('clear and convincing evidence') and grant party status to family and guardians for individuals alleged to be mentally retarded, while requiring a higher burden of proof ('beyond a reasonable doubt') and not granting such party status for individuals alleged to be mentally ill, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. Kentucky's statutory distinctions do not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses because they are rationally related to legitimate state interests. Under rational-basis review, a legislative classification must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable state of facts could provide a rational basis for it. Kentucky's use of a lower burden of proof for mental retardation is justified because mental retardation is a developmental condition that is generally easier to diagnose than mental illness, which can have a sudden onset in adulthood. The state could also rationally conclude that dangerousness is more accurately predicted for the mentally retarded based on past behavior, and that treatment for mental retardation (habilitation) is generally less invasive than treatment for mental illness (psychotropic drugs, psychotherapy). Allowing family and guardians party status in mental retardation cases is rational because they have lifelong knowledge valuable to the court, a situation not always present with adult-onset mental illness. This participation does not violate due process because it enhances, rather than detracts from, the accuracy of the proceeding, which is the core concern of the Due Process Clause.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The Kentucky statute is not rational and violates the Equal Protection Clause. I continue to adhere to the view that laws discriminating against individuals with mental retardation or infringing on fundamental rights like liberty should be subject to heightened scrutiny, not mere rational-basis review.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. Kentucky's provision of different procedures violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not supported by any rational justification. Burdens of proof are set based on the value society places on individual liberty, not the mere difficulty of proving a condition. The liberty interest of a mentally retarded person is just as significant as that of a mentally ill person. The majority's assumption that treatment for the mentally retarded is less invasive is factually unsupported, as studies show psychotropic drugs and other invasive therapies are widely used in institutions for the retarded. Furthermore, granting party status to family members effectively creates a 'second prosecutor' against the individual, and there is no rational basis for imposing this extra burden on the mentally retarded but not the mentally ill.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
Yes and No. I agree with the dissent that Kentucky’s differential standard of proof for committing the mentally ill and the mentally retarded is irrational and violates the Equal Protection Clause. However, I agree with the majority that there is a rational basis for permitting close relatives and guardians to participate as parties in proceedings to commit the mentally retarded but not the mentally ill, and that this provision does not violate procedural due process.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a highly deferential standard of rational-basis review for classifications based on mental disability, reinforcing the precedent set in Schweiker v. Wilson rather than the more searching 'rational basis with a bite' applied in Cleburne. By upholding Kentucky's procedural distinctions, the Court affirmed that legislatures have broad latitude to create different legal frameworks for different disabilities, even when fundamental liberty interests are at stake, as long as a conceivable, arguable justification exists. The ruling signals that courts should not act as 'superlegislatures' second-guessing legislative policy choices in this area, which may make it more difficult to bring successful equal protection challenges against laws that differentiate between disability groups without applying heightened scrutiny.
Unlock the full brief for Heller v. Doe