holding no equal protection violation and that neither strict scrutiny nor intermediate scrutiny was applicable
How later courts described this case
- holding no equal protection violation and that neither strict scrutiny nor intermediate scrutiny was applicable
- rejecting argument that “distinctive legislative treatment of the District is ‘particularly suspect’ and thus requires more than a rational basis to support it”
- upholding civil commitment of a defendant under a District of Columbia statute authorizing the institu tionalization of persons acquitted by reason of insanity
- upholding dvil commitment of a defendant under a District of Columbia statute authorizing the institutionalization of persons acquitted by reason of insanity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur only in'the result reached by the court. On the facts of this case, I agree that the challenged procedures enacted by Congress for “commitment” of federal criminal defendants in the District of Columbia do not violate the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.