InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

United States v. Graydon Earl Comstock, Jr., et al.

The Court held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody.

560 U.S. 126 · No. 08-1224 · 2009 term · Roberts Court

Decided May 17, 2010 · argued Jan 12, 2010

Federalism · National supremacy: miscellaneous

Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer

The voteMajorityDissent

7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Reversed and remanded. United States won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2009 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSotomayorBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsAlitoScaliaThomas

Majority(7)

Dissent(2)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
United StatesUnited States
Respondent
Graydon Earl Comstock, Jr., et al.Involuntarily committed mental patient
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 (necessary and proper clause)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. May 17, 2010DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. United States won.
  2. Jan 12, 2010ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

40 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: miscellaneous, newest first.

  1. United States v. Washington2022 U.S. LEXIS 3010Jun 21, 2022 · 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3010Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  2. United States v. Texas142 S. Ct. 522Dec 10, 2021 · 142 S. Ct. 522Federalism8–18–1 band

  3. Allen v. Cooper140 S. Ct. 994Mar 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 994Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  4. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton139 S. Ct. 1881Jun 10, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1881Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  5. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic AssociationLandmark · Federalism138 S. Ct. 1461May 14, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1461Federalism7–27–2 band

  6. National Federation of Independent Business, et al., Petitioners v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.Landmark · Federalism567 U.S. 519Jun 28, 2012 · 567 U.S. 519Federalism5–45–4 band

  7. United States v. Georgia et al.546 U.S. 151Jan 10, 2006 · 546 U.S. 151Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  8. Basim Omar Sabri v. United States541 U.S. 600May 17, 2004 · 541 U.S. 600Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  9. Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Pamela L. Hood541 U.S. 440May 17, 2004 · 541 U.S. 440Federalism7–27–2 band
  10. Linda Frew, on Behalf of Her Daughter, Carla Frew, et al. v. Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, et al.540 U.S. 431Jan 14, 2004 · 540 U.S. 431Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  11. Nevada Department of Human Resources, et al. v. William Hibbs et al.538 U.S. 721May 27, 2003 · 538 U.S. 721Federalism6–36–3 band

  12. Paul D. Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.535 U.S. 613May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 613Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  13. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, et al., v. Patricia Garrett, et al.531 U.S. 356Feb 21, 2001 · 531 U.S. 356Federalism5–45–4 band

  14. United States v. Antonio J. Morrison, et al.Landmark · Federalism529 U.S. 598May 15, 2000 · 529 U.S. 598Federalism5–45–4 band

  15. Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Charlie Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, et al.528 U.S. 141Jan 12, 2000 · 528 U.S. 141Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  16. J. Daniel Kimel, Jr., et al. v. Florida Board of Regents, et al.528 U.S. 62Jan 11, 2000 · 528 U.S. 62Federalism5–45–4 band

  17. John H. Alden, et al. v. Maine527 U.S. 706Jun 23, 1999 · 527 U.S. 706Federalism5–45–4 band

  18. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board et al.527 U.S. 666Jun 23, 1999 · 527 U.S. 666Federalism5–45–4 band
  19. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and United States527 U.S. 627Jun 23, 1999 · 527 U.S. 627Federalism5–45–4 band
  20. Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United StatesLandmark · Federalism521 U.S. 898Jun 27, 1997 · 521 U.S. 898Federalism5–45–4 band

  21. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida et al.517 U.S. 44Mar 27, 1996 · 517 U.S. 44Federalism5–45–4 band

  22. United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr.Landmark · Federalism514 U.S. 549Apr 26, 1995 · 514 U.S. 549Federalism5–45–4 band

  23. Mark Howlett, a Minor, by and Through Elizabeth Howlett, His Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Friend v. Scott Rose, As Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Florida, et al.496 U.S. 356Jun 11, 1990 · 496 U.S. 356Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  24. George S. Bennett v. Arkansas485 U.S. 395Mar 29, 1988 · 485 U.S. 395Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  25. South Dakota v. Dole, Secretary of TransportationLandmark · Federalism483 U.S. 203Jun 23, 1987 · 483 U.S. 203Federalism7–27–2 band

  26. Atascadero State Hospital et al. v. Scanlon473 U.S. 234Jun 28, 1985 · 473 U.S. 234Federalism5–45–4 band

  27. Lawrence County et al. v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1469 U.S. 256Jan 9, 1985 · 469 U.S. 256Federalism7–27–2 band
  28. Pennhurst State School and Hospital et al. v. Halderman et al.465 U.S. 89Jan 23, 1984 · 465 U.S. 89Federalism5–45–4 band
  29. Ray, Governor of Washington, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et al.435 U.S. 151Mar 6, 1978 · 435 U.S. 151Federalism6–36–3 band
  30. Fry et al. v. United States421 U.S. 542May 27, 1975 · 421 U.S. 542Federalism7–18–1 band
  31. Nash v. Florida Industrial Commission et al.389 U.S. 235Dec 5, 1967 · 389 U.S. 235Federalism8–0Unanimous band
  32. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch387 U.S. 456Jun 5, 1967 · 387 U.S. 456Federalism6–36–3 band
  33. Donovan et al. v. City of Dallas et al.377 U.S. 408Jun 8, 1964 · 377 U.S. 408Federalism6–36–3 band
  34. Head, Doing Business As Lea County Publishing Co., et al. v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry374 U.S. 424Jun 17, 1963 · 374 U.S. 424Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  35. Division 1287, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America et al. v. Missouri374 U.S. 74Jun 10, 1963 · 374 U.S. 74Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  36. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission et al. v. Continental Air Lines, Inc.372 U.S. 714Apr 22, 1963 · 372 U.S. 714Federalism9–0Unanimous band
  37. Bibb, Director, Department of Public Safety of Illinois, et al. v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., et al.359 U.S. 520May 25, 1959 · 359 U.S. 520Federalism9–0Unanimous band

  38. Greenwood v. United States350 U.S. 366Mar 5, 1956 · 350 U.S. 366Federalism8–0Unanimous band
  39. Franklin National Bank of Franklin Square v. New York347 U.S. 373Apr 5, 1954 · 347 U.S. 373Federalism8–18–1 band
  40. United States v. Burnison et al.339 U.S. 87Mar 13, 1950 · 339 U.S. 87Federalism7–18–1 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.