Kеvin Scott KARSJENS; David Leroy Gamble; Kevin John DeVillion; Peter Gerard Lonergan; James Matthew Noyer, Sr.; James John Rud; James Allen Barber; Craig Allen Bolte; Dennis Richard Steiner; Kaine Joseph Braun; Christopher John Thuringer; Kenny S. Daywitt; Bradley Wayne Foster; Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Emily Johnson PIPER; Kevin Moser; Peter Puffer; Nancy Johnston; Jannine Hebert; Ann Zimmerman, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants
No. 15-3485
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
January 3, 2017
845 F.3d 394
Since Charter filed the fraudulent financial statements, the suppliers did not make a misrepresentation that the public relied on. The suppliers’ participation in sham transactions did not reach the public and “nothing respondents did made it necessary or inevitable for Charter to record the transactions as it did.” Id. As a result, the causal link between the false financial statements and the suppliers’ conduct was too remote to demonstrate reliance. Id. at 161, 128 S.Ct. 761. Instead, the Court determined that allowing the scheme liability claim against the suppliers would “revive in substance the implied cause of action against all aiders and abettors except those who committed no deceptive act in the process of facilitating the fraud.” Id. at 162-63, 128 S.Ct. 761. As a result, under Stoneridge, a plaintiff asserting a scheme liability claim must demonstrate that the causal connection between the defendants’ alleged deceptive act and the information on which the market relied is not too remote to support a finding of reliance.
Unlike the conduct at issue in Stoneridge, the causal connection between Medtronic‘s alleged deceptive conduct and the information on which the market relied is not too remote to support a finding of reliance. Medtronic‘s alleged deceptive conduct consists of manipulating the clinical trials by paying the physician-authors to conceal adverse effects and to overstate the disadvantages of alternative procedures. Appellants alleged in their complaint that investors directly relied on the resulting favorable clinical trials. Indeed, according to the Appellants’ amended complaint, in speaking with potential investors, Medtronic‘s CEO specifically emphasized that the company‘s products’ strong clinical trial performance undergirded Medtronic‘s competitiveness and sustainability. As a result, taking the allegations as true, Medtronic‘s deceptive conduct directly caused the production of the information on which the market relied. Unlike the suppliers’ conduct in Stoneridge, Medtronic‘s purported conduct would not merely assist or enable the physician-authors to deceive the market. Rather, Medtronic‘s alleged conduct would deceive the market with the assistance of the physician-authors. A company cannot instruct individuals to take a certain action, pay to induce them to do it, and then claim any causal connection is too remote when they follow through. In this way, Medtronic‘s alleged manipulative conduct directly caused the biased clinical trial results that the market relied upon. This alleged causal connection is sufficient to support a finding of reliance. Thus, Stoneridge‘s concern about resurrecting private aiding and abetting claims does not arise here. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Medtronic‘s alternate ground for affirmance.
III.
For the reasons discussed above, we vacate summary judgment and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Minnesota House of Representatives, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s)
Eric Steven Janus; American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s)
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Alan Gilbert, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN. The following attorneys also appeared on the appellant brief; Nathan Brennaman, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN., Scott Hiromi Ikeda, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN., Alethea Marie Huyser, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN., Kathryn Iverson Lаndrum, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN., Aaron Edward Winter, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Daniel E. Gustafson, of Minneapolis, MN. The following attorneys also appeared on the appellee brief; Karla M. Gluek, of Minneapolis, MN., David A. Goodwin, of Minneapolis, MN., Raina Borrelli, of Minneapolis, MN. Richard Feldhaus, of Minneapolis, MN., Michael N. Leonard, of Minneapolis, MN.
The following attorneys appeared on the amicus brief of Eric Janus and The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota in support of the appellees; Eric Steven Janus, of Saint Paul, MN., Teresa Nelson, of Saint Paul, MN.
The following attorneys appeared on the amicus brief of Minnesota House of Representatives in support of appellants; Kay Nord Hunt, of Minneapolis, MN., Bryan Richard Feldhaus, of Minneapolis, MN., Michael N. Leonard, of Minneapolis, MN.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Class plaintiffs, civilly committed sex offenders, bring a facial and as applied challenge under
I.
A. Minnesota Statutory Structure
In 1994, the Minnesota legislature enacted the Minnesota Civil Commitment and
Once committed under MCTA, a committed person or the executive director of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program may petition for a reduction in custody, which includes “transfer out of a secure treatment facility,3 a provisional discharge,4 or a discharge from commitment.5”
“A committed person may not petition the special review board any sooner than six months following either” the entry of the initial commitment order by the district court or appeal therefrom or resolution of a prior petition including exhaustion of any appeal rights.
B. Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP)
The State of Minnesota established, under the vested authority of the Commissioner of DHS, the MSOP. Under law, MSOP is to “provide specialized sex offender assessment, diagnosis, care, treatment, supervision, and other services to civilly committed sex offenders ... [which] may include specialized programs at sеcure treatment facilities ..., consultative services, aftercare services, community-based services and programs, transition services, or other services consistent with the mission of the Department of Human Services.”
Beginning in 2008, MSOP adopted a three-phase treatment program. Phase I focuses on rule compliance, emotional regulation, and treatment engagement, but individuals do not receive any specific sex offense therapy. In Phase II, MSOP provides therapy that focuses on identifying and addressing patterns of sexually abusive behaviors. MSOP emphasizes discussion and exploration of the committed individual‘s history of sexually offensive behaviors along with the motivations of those behaviors. When a committed person reaches Phase III, MSOP builds on the skills learned in Phase II and focuses on reintegration into the community. Advancement through the phases is based on a Goal Matrix where the individual‘s treatment process is scored using various factors. Although the MSOP Treatment Manual states that a committed person could be initially assigned to any phase of the program, no MSOP official could recall a person being assigned to anything but Phase I at the Moose Lake facility.
C. Claims
In December 2011, plaintiffs filed a pro se suit, pursuant to
As litigation progressed, including discovery, the district court, in an effort to reach a settlement agreement, ordered the DHS commissioner to create a fifteen-member “Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force” to “examine and provide recommended legislative proposals to the Commissioner on the following topics:
A. The civil commitment and referral process for sex offenders;
B. Sex offender civil commitment options that are less restrictive than placement in a secure treatment facility; and
C. The standards and processes for the reduction in custody for civilly committed sex offenders.”
The court later ordered the creation of a MSOP Program Evaluation Team to evaluate the class plaintiffs’ treatment placement and phase progression.
In August 2013, plaintiffs moved for a declaratory judgment finding the MCTA unconstitutional on its face and as applied to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the statute is unconstitutional on its face because the statutory discharge standards are more difficult to overcome than the initial statutory commitment standards. For a person to be committed, the state has to show the person is a sexually dangerous person or a person with a sexual psychopathic personality and that the person is highly likely to reoffend. However, discharge under MCTA requires a showing that the person is “no longer dangerous.” In comparison to the commitment criteria, the plaintiffs argued the discharge standard is more stringent. The plaintiffs also claimed the statute is unconstitutional as applied because no person committed has ever been fully discharged from MSOP and because there is no automatic, independent, periodic review of an individual‘s need for continuing commitment. In February 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment and issued detailed instructions to the four Rule 706 experts it had appointed to assist the court in understanding the complexities of the case.7
The district court proposed hearing the matter in a bench trial. The state defendants objected, arguing that they had preserved the right to a jury trial. In response, plaintiffs moved to again amend their complaint to clarify their allegations and to remove any damages claim from the complaint. The magistrate judge granted the motion to file the Third Amended Complaint that clearly set forth facial and as applied claims based on due process violations and removed any damages claim. Because there were no longer damages claims and plaintiffs were only seeking injunctive relief, the district court ordered that the case be submitted at a bench trial.
Phase I of the bench trial ocсurred from February 9, 2015 to March 18, 2015. During the six-week trial, the district court heard testimony from all four Rule 706 experts, several named plaintiffs, and MSOP employees and staff. Following the trial, the district court entered a broad order finding MCTA unconstitutional facially and as applied. The court held that Minnesota‘s civil commitment scheme for sex offenders is a punitive system without the safeguards found in the criminal justice system. It also held that MCTA “is not narrowly tailored and results in a punitive effect and application contrary to the purpose of civil commitment.” Specifically, the district court concluded:
The district court also determined MCTA was unconstitutional as apрlied for six reasons:
(1) Defendants do not conduct periodic independent risk assessments or otherwise evaluate whether an individual continues to meet the initial commitment criteria or the discharge criteria if an individual does not file a petition; (2) those risk assessments that have been performed have not all been performed in a constitutional manner; (3) individuals have remained confined at the MSOP even though they have completed treatment or sufficiently reduced their risk; (4) discharge procedures are not working properly at the MSOP; (5) although
In reaching its conclusions as to both Counts 1 and 2, the facial and as-applied challenges, the district court applied “strict scrutiny, placing the burden on the state to show that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest” because “Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to live free of physical restraint is constrained by the curtailment of their liberty.” The court noted it would address the remaining claims in the Third Amended Complaint in a second phase of the trial and in a separate order.
E. Injunctive Relief
In a subsequent order, the district court directed MSOP to “conduct independent risk and phase placement reevaluation of all current patients at MSOP.” The court provided detailed directions as to how and when the reviews were to be conducted, including identifying certain individuals to be evaluated first, and directed MSOP officials to file petitions for rеduction in custody for all persons found eligible for such relief through the reevaluation. Defendants’ compliance with the court‘s directives are to be monitored by a special master who has “authority to monitor compliance with the remedies” and “authority to implement and enforce the injunctive relief imposed by the Court and to mediate any dispute between the parties with regard to the implementation of the remedies.” The order further noted that the court “contemplates” entering “further specific relief against Defendants” in subsequent orders, foreseeing directions as to MSOP‘s treatment structure and discharge process, training for MSOP employees, periodic evaluation of MSOP by external experts, and the development of a statewide public education campaign.
II.
The state defendants appeal the district court‘s entry of declaratory judgment and the district court‘s grant of injunctive relief. First, they allege structural due process error based on the district court judge‘s bias against them. Second, the state defendants argue three jurisdictional defects. Lastly, the state defendants dispute the district court‘s determinations on the merits, focusing specifically on whether the district court applied the proper standards of scrutiny to the plaintiffs’ due process claims. All issues raised by the state defendants concern questions of law, which we review de novo. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 1748, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014) (recognizing that questions of law are reviewed under de novo standard of review).
A. Judicial Bias
The state defendants claim that the district court pre-judged the case against them, violating their due process rights to a neutral decisionmaker. In support of this argument, state defendants first point to various comments made by the district court that are critical of MSOP and remarks suggesting that state officials should make drastic changes to the program. For instance, in one order, the district сourt concluded with the statement, “The program‘s systemic problems will clearly broken, or stand idly by and do nothing, simply awaiting Court intervention.” (Doc. 427 at 69 (footnote omitted).) Just prior to the bench trial, the court denied the state defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and for summary judgment. In that order, it stated, again in conclusion, “It is difficult for the Court to understand why the parties have not resolved this case in a manner that would
Second, the state defendants argue that the Rule 706 experts were improperly used by the court to aid the plaintiffs in preparing and presenting their case. Although not appealing the court‘s appointment of the Rule 706 experts, the state defendants argue that the court used those experts to prosecute the plaintiffs’ case and this demonstratеs that the court had assumed the mantle of an advocate.
Third, the state defendants note that the Third Amended Complaint was filed almost three years after the commencement of the case and matched the court‘s September 9, 2014 order as to the issues the court wished to address in the bench trial. Again, the state defendants are not challenging the district court‘s order allowing the plaintiffs to file the Third Amended complaint; rather, the state defendants argue that it was improper for the court to counsel the plaintiffs on the claims it should present to the court. This Third Amended Complaint also had the effect of forcing a bench trial as the three previous versions of the complaint contained damages claims but the Third Amended Complaint only sought equitable relief.
Finally, the state defendants argue that the district court ordered the creation of a task force to provide legislative proposals for settlement purposes. The state defendants claim that the district court‘s order providing for the creation of the task force provided that the report prepared by the task force would not be admissible at trial, but the court admitted the report at the bench trial and then considered and relied upon the report in deciding the case. The state defendants also claim the district court influenced who would be appointed to that task force. This process, the state defendants claim, also demonstrates improper judicial advocacy.
The state defendants argue the result of these various district court actions was obviously biased fact-finding by the court. According to the state defendants, the court assumed the role of an advocate instead of a neutral magistrate. Based on this alleged bias, the state defendants request that this court overturn the decisions of the district court as the bias constitutes a structural error requiring “automatic rеversal.”
Parties to litigation are “entitled to due process, the essence of which is a fair trial before a tribunal free from bias or prejudice.” Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1191 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136-37, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955)). “Ordinarily, when unfair judicial procedures result in a denial of due process, this court could simply find error, reverse and remand the matter.” Reserve Mining Co. v. Lord, 529 F.2d 181, 185 (8th Cir. 1976). In those cases where the court has found a biased or prejudiced district judge resulted in a due process violation, the evidence of bias was overwhelming. For instance, in Gardiner, the district judge “stated that he believed the truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, adding that he had become an advocate for plaintiffs and that he was, in fact, prejudiced.” 747 F.2d at 1192.
B. Jurisdiction
The state defendants raise three challenges to the jurisdiction of the district court in this matter. First, the state defendants argue the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge MCTA. The state defendants argue the latest version of the complaint alleges violations of the plaintiffs’ liberty interests, but the plaintiffs have not identified a named plaintiff or a member of the class who would be entitled to discharge if reevaluated. Instead, the plaintiffs merely speculate that some of them or some of the members of the class would be subject to discharge upon completion of a risk assessment. According to the state defendants, because the alleged harm is speculative, the plaintiffs have not shown an actual deprivation of their liberty, and thus they lack standing to bring this action.
We reject this argument. “Article III establishes three elements as a constitutional minimum for a party to have standing: (1) ‘an injury in fact,’ meаning ‘the actual or imminent invasion of a con- crete and particularized legal interest‘; (2) a causal connection between the alleged injury and the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court.” Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng‘rs, 645 F.3d 978, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). “This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.‘” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Cont‘l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990)). Here, we agree with the class plaintiffs that they have standing because their claim is not that they are all entitled to release but rather that their constitutional rights are being violated because MCTA and MSOP‘S implementation of MCTA violates the due process clause. The class plaintiffs are seeking certain procedural protections such as periodic reviews of their confinemеnt and placement in appropriate facili-
ties.
Next, the state defendants argue that this action is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), because it is an attempt to use
Finally, the state defendants challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The defendants claim plaintiffs are seeking through this action to reverse “hundreds” of state-court judgments that have held MCTA to be constitutional when raised by individual defendants challenging the application of MCTA to them. “The Rookеr-Feldman doctrine is narrow; it applies only to ‘cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.‘” Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, 645 F.3d 1014, 1018 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005)). “The doctrine thus occupies a ‘narrow ground’ and does not ‘stop a district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state court.‘” Banks v. Slay, 789 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284, 293). As previously discussed, the class plaintiffs are not seeking review and rejection of state court judgments nor are the plaintiffs claiming to have suffered harm because of prior state court judgments which have held MCTA constitutional. Through this action, plaintiffs are seeking prospective injunctive relief based on a theory that the MCTA violates their fundamental liberty rights. Therefore the narrow Rooker-Feldman bar does not apply to this action.
C. Standards of Scrutiny
The district court held that, because the committed individuals have a fundamental
i. Facial Due Process
The United States Constitution guarantees that “[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Although the Supreme Court has characterized civil commitment as a “significant deprivation of liberty,” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979), it has never declared that persons who pose a significant danger to themselves or others possess a fundamental liberty interest in freedom from physical restraint. See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 116, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority‘s analysis of a due process challenge to a civil commitment statute because, “[f]irst, the Court never explains whether we are dealing here with a fundamental right, and ... [s]econd, the Court never discloses what standard of review applies“). Rather, when considering the constitutionality of Kansas‘s Sexually Violent Predator Act, the Court stated “[a]lthough freedom from physical restraint ‘has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action,’ that liberty interest is not absolute.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (quoting Foucha, 504 U.S. at 80). The Court noted that many states provide for the involuntary civil commitment of people who are unable to control their behavior and pose a threat to public health and safety, and “[i]t thus cannot be said that the involuntary civil confinement of a limited subclass of dangerous persons is contrary to our understanding of ordered liberty.” Id. at 357. When considering the due process implications of a civil commitment case, the Supreme Court stated “[a]t the least, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individuаl is committed.” Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the proper standard of scrutiny to be applied to plaintiffs’ facial due process challenge is whether MCTA
ii. As-Applied Due Process
When it considered the proper standard to apply, the district court stated substantive due process protected against two types of government action: action that shocks the conscience or action that interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The district court then proceeded to discuss how the state defendants’ actions interfered with the class plaintiffs’ liberty interests to be free from restraint and thus was subject to a strict scrutiny analysis. The district court applied the improper standard to consider an as-applied challenge when it determined there were two types of government action that could violate the class plaintiffs’ substantive duе process rights.
Following the Supreme Court‘s decision in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), this court held to prevail on an as-applied due process claim, that the state defendants’ actions violated the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights, the plaintiffs “must demonstrate both that the [state defendants‘] conduct was conscience-shocking, and that the [state defendants] violated one or more fundamental rights that are ‘deeply rooted in this Nation‘s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.‘” Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 651 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (Bye, J., concurring and writing for a majority on this issue) (emphasis in original) (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21). The district court, citing to a pre-Lewis decision of United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), used the former disjunctive standard and focused only on whether there was a fundamental right at issue, and having determined that there was a fundamental right at issue, the district court applied a strict scrutiny test to both the facial and as-applied challenges.
As indicated above, however, the court should determine both whether the state defendants’ actions were conscience-shocking and if those actions violated a fundamental liberty interest. To determine if the actions were conscience-shocking, the district court should consider whether the state defendants’ actions were “egregious or outrageous.” See Montin v. Gibson, 718 F.3d 752, 755 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Burton v. Richmond, 370 F.3d 723, 729 (8th Cir. 2004)). To meet this high standard, we have explained that the alleged substantive due process violations must involve conduct “so severe ... so disproportionate to the need presented, and ... so inspired by malice or sadism rather than a merely careless or unwise excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience.” Moran, 296 F.3d at 647 (quoting In re Scott Cnty. Master Docket, 672 F.Supp. 1152, 1166 (D. Minn. 1987)). Accordingly, the district court applied an incorrect standard in considering the class plaintiffs’ as-applied substantive due process claims.
D. Substantive Due Process
i. Facial Challenge
The district court announced six grounds upon which MCTA wаs facially unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny standard—(1) MCTA did not require periodic risk assessments of all committed persons, (2) MCTA did not provide for a judicial bypass mechanism, (3) MCTA rendered discharge from MSOP more onerous than admission because discharge criteria was more stringent than admission crite-ria,
Reasonable relationship review is highly deferential to the legislature. No one can reasonably dispute that Minnesota has a real, legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm caused by sexually dangerous persons or persons who have a sexual psychopathic personality. See Addington, 441 U.S. at 426, 99 S.Ct. 1804 (“[T]he state ... has authority under its police power to protect the community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill.“). The question then is whether MCTA is reasonably related to this interest. The burden to prove the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest is borne by the class plaintiffs, whereas the burden to show that a statute is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest is borne by the state. See FCC v. Beach Comm‘ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314-15, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) (“On rational-basis review, ... those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden ‘to negate every conceivable basis which might support it.‘” (quoting Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356, 364, 93 S.Ct. 1001, 35 L.Ed.2d 351 (1973))); Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 416 F.3d 738, 749 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The strict scrutiny test requires the state to show that the law that burdens the protected right advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” (citations omitted)).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has had opportunity to consider whether the then-applicable Minnesota commitment statute violated due process. In In re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn. 1994), that court held, “[s]o long as civil commitment is programmed to provide treatment and periodic review, due process is provided. Minnesota‘s commitment system provides for periodic review and reevaluation of the need for continued confinement.” The next year, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1995), and considered a due process challenge to MCTA. Referring back to Blodgett, the court held, “once a person is committed, his or her due process rights are protected through procedural safeguards that include periodic review and reevaluation, the opportunity to petition for transfer to an open hospital, the opportunity to petition for full discharge, and the right to competent medical care and treatment.” Id. at 318-19.
MCTA is facially constitutional because it is rationally related to Minnesota‘s legitimate interests. The district court expressed concerns about the lack of periodic risk assessments, the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and the processes for seeking a custody reduction or a release. MCTA provides “proper procedures and evidentiary standards” for a committed person to petition for a reduction in his custody or his release from
We conclude that this extensive process and the protections to persons committed under MCTA are rationally related to the State‘s legitimate interest of protecting its citizens from sexually dangerous persons or persons who have a sexual psychopathic personality. Those protections allow committed individuals to petition for a reduction in custody, including release; therefore, the statute is facially constitutional.
ii. As-Applied Challenge
We agree with the state defendants that much of the district court‘s “as-applied” analysis is not a consideration of the application of MCTA to the class plaintiffs but is a criticism of the statutory scheme itself. For instance, the court found that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs because the state defendants do not conduct periodic risk assessments. However, the class plaintiffs acknowledge that MCTA does not require periodic risk assessments but those assessments are performed whenever a committed person seeks a reduction in custody. The district court also found as-applied violations in aspects of the treatment received by the committed persons, specifically concluding that the treatment program‘s structure has been an “institutional failure” and lacks a meaningful relationship between the program and an end to indefinite detention. However, we have previously held that although “the Supreme Court has recognized a substantive due process right to reasonably safe custodial conditions, [it has not recognized] a broader due process right to appropriate or effective or reasonable treatment of the illness or disability that triggered the patient‘s involuntary confinement.” See Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 557 (8th Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779, 788 (8th Cir. 2006)). Further, as the Supreme Court recognized, the Constitution does not prevent “a State from civilly detaining those for whom no treatment is available.” Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 366, 117 S.Ct. 2072. Nevertheless, as discussed previously, to maintain an as-applied due process challenge, the class plaintiffs have the burden of showing the state actors’ actions were conscience-shocking and violate a fundamental liberty interest. See Moran, 296 F.3d at 651.
None of the six grounds upon which the district court determined the state defendants violated the class plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights in an as-applied context satisfy the conscience-shocking standard. Having reviewed these grounds and the record on appeal, we conclude that the class plaintiffs have failed to demon-strate
III.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court‘s finding of a constitutional violation and vacate the injunctive order. We remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings on the remaining claims in the Third Amendеd Complaint.