In the case of Kansas v. Michael T. Crane, the US Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot confine an individual indefinitely for control purposes unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they lack self-control due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder. The court held this in response to Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act which allowed indefinite confinement based on past sexual offenses and future dangerousness alone without proving lack of volitional control over behavior. Michael T. Crane had been convicted twice for lewd and lascivious behavior, but argued against his civil commitment under the act as he did not have any diagnosed condition causing serious difficulty in controlling his behavior - a requirement set by previous rulings (Kansas v Hendricks). The Supreme Court agreed with him, stating that proof of serious difficulty in controlling behaviour is necessary before imposing such severe restrictions on liberty.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Michael T. Crane, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision blurred the line between insanity acquittals and criminal convictions followed by civil commitment proceedings. He contended that this could potentially lead to an erosion of protections afforded to those acquitted on grounds of insanity, as they may be subjected to indefinite confinement without proof beyond a reasonable doubt regarding their dangerousness or mental illness. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "lack of control" as a defining characteristic for sexually violent predators, stating it was too vague and subjective to serve as a legal standard in such serious matters involving personal liberty.