United States v. Volungus
2009 WL 489838, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15510, 599 F. Supp. 2d 68 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress lacks the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact a statute for the indefinite civil commitment of 'sexually dangerous' federal prisoners after their sentences expire. Such a power is a general police power reserved to the states, and the federal law is too attenuated from any enumerated federal power to be a valid exercise of congressional authority.
Facts:
- In 1999, John Charles Volungus was convicted of three federal criminal sex offenses and sentenced to prison.
- After serving his initial sentence, his subsequent supervised release was revoked, and he was sent back to prison for an additional term.
- Volungus's second term of imprisonment was scheduled to expire on February 15, 2007.
- Prior to his scheduled release date, the United States government initiated proceedings under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 4248, to have him indefinitely civilly committed.
- The basis for the government's action was the claim that Volungus is a 'sexually dangerous person' as defined by the statute.
- As a result of the government's filing, Volungus remained in federal custody beyond his sentence expiration date, with no other legal basis for his continued detention.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to have John Charles Volungus civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248.
- Volungus, the respondent, filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding, arguing that the statute authorizing his commitment is unconstitutional.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Congress have the authority under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact a statute (18 U.S.C. § 4248) authorizing the indefinite civil commitment of a federal prisoner deemed 'sexually dangerous' after that prisoner's sentence has expired?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Toole, District Judge
No, the statute is unconstitutional because its enactment does not fall within the scope of powers granted to Congress. The law cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause, as it regulates non-economic, violent conduct that, per United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, lacks a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Civil commitment to protect public safety is a traditional exercise of state police power, not a federal one. The statute is also not a valid exercise of the Necessary and Proper Clause, as its connection to any enumerated federal power is too remote and contingent. Unlike the commitment of an incompetent defendant to preserve a future federal prosecution (upheld in Greenwood v. United States), this law detains individuals based on predictions of future dangerousness in aid of general public safety, which usurps a core function of the states.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the federalist principle that Congress's powers are enumerated and limited, particularly challenging the expansion of federal authority into areas of traditional state police power. By applying the restrictive view of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses from Lopez and Morrison, the court concluded that post-sentence civil commitment is too attenuated from any federal interest to be constitutional. This ruling contributed to a split among federal courts on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 4248, setting the stage for appellate review and an eventual Supreme Court decision on the matter in United States v. Comstock.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Volungus