McKune v. Lile
| McKune v. Lile | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 28, 2001 Decided June 10, 2002 | |
| Full case name | McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile |
| Citations | 536 U.S. 24 (more) 122 S. Ct. 2017; 153 L. Ed. 2d 47; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4206 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Lile v. McKune, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Kan. 1998); 224 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2000), reversed and remanded |
| Holding | |
| The state's consequences for non-participants of the SATP program do not constitute a violation of the respondent's Fifth Amendment rights. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and that the, “consequences that follow for nonparticipation, do not, under the Kansas plan, combine to create compulsion, thereby infringing upon the participant’s [fifth] amendment right”. Due to the plurality of the case, no singular decision was held as a majority.