In Humphrey v. Cady, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a Wisconsin sexual deviancy law violated due process rights by allowing for extended confinement without periodic review of an individual's condition. The case involved Mr. Humphrey who was convicted of a sex-related crime and sentenced to probation, which he later violated leading to his incarceration under the state's Sex Crimes Act. After serving two-thirds of his sentence, he was committed indefinitely to the Department of Public Welfare as a "sexually dangerous person". He challenged this commitment arguing it violated his constitutional rights because there were no regular reviews or opportunities for release based on improved mental health status. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Humphrey stating that such indefinite detention could potentially violate due process if not accompanied by regular review procedures ensuring that continued confinement remains necessary and appropriate. The court remanded the case back to lower courts for further examination into Wisconsin’s practices regarding civil commitments under its Sex Crimes Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Humphrey v. Cady, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights by allowing indefinite civil commitment based on a criminal conviction without providing adequate procedural safeguards. He contended that this law allowed individuals to be punished twice for the same crime, which is prohibited under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he criticized majority's reliance on an outdated and discredited theory of mental illness as justification for such laws and warned against using psychiatric labels to justify depriving people of their liberty without proper legal protections in place.