In their ruling in the case In re Hendricks 259 Kan. 246, 261, 912 P. 2d 129, 138 (1996), The Kansas Supreme Court invalidated, or set aside, the new law, based on the language used in it. The Kansas Supreme Court held that law’s pre-condition for the civil commitment, the finding of a “mental abnormality” did not meet the substantive due process requirement that a civil commitment had to be based on the diagnosis of a “mental illness” (Cornell University, n.d.). Once this ruling was handed down, the state of Kansas appealed to the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, Hendricks also filed a petition for relief with the United States Supreme
In their ruling in the case In re Hendricks 259 Kan. 246, 261, 912 P. 2d 129, 138 (1996), The Kansas Supreme Court invalidated, or set aside, the new law, based on the language used in it. The Kansas Supreme Court held that law’s pre-condition for the civil commitment, the finding of a “mental abnormality” did not meet the substantive due process requirement that a civil commitment had to be based on the diagnosis of a “mental illness” (Cornell University, n.d.). Once this ruling was handed down, the state of Kansas appealed to the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, Hendricks also filed a petition for relief with the United States Supreme