Expired Involuntary Commitment Order Can Be Reviewed Because of Collateral Effect on Gun Rights

Sounds right to me.

The case is In the Matter of D.K.; it was decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, but I hadn't noticed it then, and just learned about it because of a new decision that cited it. From Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler's majority opinion:

[T]he County had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.K. was mentally ill, a proper subject for commitment, and dangerous. The circuit court concluded that Winnebago County met its burden of proof, ordered D.K.'s involuntary commitment for six months, and ordered involuntary medication and treatment. The court of appeals affirmed. It concluded that D.K.'s threats and plans to strangle police officers and kill other people established a "'reasonable fear … of serious physical harm' under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.," and, therefore, "the circuit court's dangerousness determination… was supported by the evidence." …

The order had expired by the time it came up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so normally the mootness doctrine would keep the court from review the order. But the court held that "D.K.'s commitment is not a moot issue because it still subjects him to a firearms ban":

As a result of his civil commitment, D.K. is "prohibited from possessing any firearm." And the "[e]xpiration of the mental commitment proceeding [did] not terminate this restriction." Accordingly, though his commitment has expired, D.K. is still subject to the lasting collateral consequence of a firearms ban. Since D.K. would otherwise have a fundamental right to bear arms, this is no minor consequence. See U.S. Const. amend II; Wis. Const. art. I, § 25. On appeal, a decision in D.K.'s favor would void the firearms ban and therefore have a "practical effect." Thus, we conclude that D.K.'s commitment is not a moot issue because it still subjects him to the collateral consequence of a firearms ban.

The court went on to the merits, and concluded that "there was clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing that D.K. was dangerous as defined" by state law, and thus upheld the commitment order; some Justices dissented as to that substantive matter, but implicitly agreed to the mootness holding (since otherwise they wouldn't have opined on the substance at all).

Comments

[Jerry B.]

Seems like 18 USC 922 (g) (4) would apply, even if the State law didn’t.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Seems like 18USC922(g)(4) is unconstitutional

[Frank Drackman]

Know nothing about the Judge, but that’s a helluva name she’s got.

[Brett Bellmore]

I’ve long thought that if penalties comparable to a felony conviction were going to be imposed on the basis of a mental health evaluation, then the due process should be similar; Adversarial process, trial by jury, and so forth.

Doctors don’t get a pass on respecting constitutional rights.

[Krychek_2]

I don’t disagree with you, though in this case I think someone who threatens to strangle police officers and kill other people probably shouldn’t have a gun.

[Brett Bellmore]

Could probably be convicted in a jury trial, too.

[Rossami]

While they are mentally ill, absolutely.
Once they are healed, the matter is not so obvious. We don’t permanently revoke rights based on other temporary ailments. What makes this different (other than the irrational stigma of mental health issues generally)?

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is irrational stigma, and there is evidence that some kinds of mental illness are intractable, or that some dangerous mental conditions wax and wane—bi-polar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia famously so.

By what standard do you suppose questions of that sort ought to be evaluated? Please take as your premise that we are talking about a case which has shown a high likelihood of deadly danger, if the person in question is actively ill.

[John F. Carr]

After Heller, the First Circuit overruled precedent and held that an adversarial process was required before a mental health order could revoke gun rights.

Under older circuit precedent you could be involuntarily committed for overnight observation, found to be fine and let go, and you would still be forever denied gun rights. There used to be a process to get rights restored but Congress prohibited expending appropriations on it. The Supreme Court ruled relief was unavailable until Congress funded it.

[apedad]

Do you have a link or some more info on that?

I fully agree that there must be a process to get rights restored.

The only time rights should be permanently revoked is upon death.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court case is U.S. v. Bean.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

I am a physician and I agree with you 100%

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Does any other enumerated right have a permanent disqualifier like this?

[santamonica811]

Hmmm. I know that some people who have been convicted of certain sex-related crimes have some of their internet access limited (ie, a loss of one’s First Amendment rights…at least in part). But I have to admit that I’m unsure if they are actually permanent restrictions, which is what you asked about.