- [Instructor] The constitutions specifically grants
certain powers to Congress.
Those powers are called enumerated powers.
The necessary and Proper Clause
allows Congress to pass laws necessary for carrying out
these enumerated powers.
However, The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers
not delegated to the Federal government for the states.
Using its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause,
congress established and regulated federal prisons
soon after the nation was created.
But congress became worried that some federal prisoners
would harm the public after being released.
To address this concern,
congress passed a statute authorizing the civil-commitment
of mentally ill and sexually violent prisoners.
Even if they already completed their sentences.
In 2006, Greyden Comstock and four other men
were serving time for crimes involving sexual violence
or child molestation.
The men were in a federal prison in North Carolina
and had almost completed their sentences.
But in the last days before their scheduled releases,
the United States attorney general
began proceedings in a federal district court
to have the prisoners committed for being mentally ill
and sexually dangerous.
The prisoners challenged the civil-commitment statute
as unconstitutional and moved to dismiss the proceedings.
The district Court agreed with the prisoners
and granted the motion to dismiss.
The United States Court of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit affirmed,
ruling that the statute exceeded the powers
granted to Congress by the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court granted cert to review
The only issue before the Supreme Court
was whether the enactment of the civil-commitment statute
exceeded the permissible scope of Congress's power
under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The federal government argued
that the clause authorized the statute,
which was necessary
to carry out Congress's enumerated powers.
The prisoners disagreed,
claiming that the relationship between the statute
and Congress's enumerated powers was too remote
for the Clause to apply.
The court held that congress had sufficient authority
under the Necessary and Proper Clause
to allow for civil-commitment of mentally ill,
sexually dangerous federal prisoners
following their prison sentences.
Justice Breyer, writing for the majority
held that the statute was a constitutional exercise
of congressional power.
The court siding McCulloch versus Maryland
noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause
doesn't require a law to be absolutely necessary
for carrying out an enumerated power.
Instead, the law just needs to be rationally related
to a goal within the proper scope of congressional power.
Breyer wrote that congress has long had the ability
under the Necessary and Proper Clause
to criminalize conduct that interferes with congress's
enumerated powers.
Congress can define federal crimes,
which means that it must have the power
to create federal prisons.
And because there are federal prisons,
there must be laws to regulate those prisons.
The court ruled
that the civil-commitment statute
was rationally related to the goal of prison regulation
for three reasons.
First, the statute was similar to other federal laws
related to mentally ill prisoners.
Second, the law helped protect the community
from dangerous prisoners.
And third,
the statute respected state interests
under the Tenth Amendment by allowing states
to take responsibility for the prisoners if they wished.
Because the civil-commitment statute was constitutional,
the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision
and remanded the case.
Justice Kennedy concurred.
Kennedy agreed that the statute was constitutional,
but urged the court to adopt a more restrictive test
for cases involving the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Kennedy also felt that the majority
didn't show enough deference to states' rights
under the Tenth Amendment.
Justice Alito concurred on the narrow ground
that the statute was necessary
to safely operate federal prisons.
Alito was otherwise concerned that the standard
used by the majority was too vague
and would improperly expand the scope of federal power.
Justice Thomas dissented.
Thomas thought that the statute was unconstitutional.
Because it infringed on states' police powers
under the Tenth Amendment.
Thomas also believed that any law
passed under the Necessary and Proper Clause
should be no more than one step away
from an enumerated power.
Justice Scalia joined Thomas' dissenting opinion
but disagreed with his interpretation of the clause.
The 1819 case of McCulloch versus Maryland
was one of the earliest and most well known cases
to consider the scope of congressional power
under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Only United States versus Comstock
and a few other cases since McCulloch
have addressed the tension between
this expansion of federal power
and the preservation of state's rights.