In the 2000 case of Mark Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center v. Andre Brigham Young, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a civil commitment statute in Washington State was not punitive and thus did not violate double jeopardy or ex post facto laws. The respondent, Andre Brigham Young had been convicted for multiple sexual offenses and upon his release from prison was committed to a special center under Washington's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). He argued that this constituted double jeopardy as he was being punished twice for the same crime. However, the court held that SVPA is non-punitive but rather a civil commitment scheme aimed at protecting society from dangerous individuals while providing treatment to those confined.

In the dissenting opinion for Mark Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center v. Andre Brigham Young (2000), Justice Stevens argued that Washington's Community Protection Act of 1990 was punitive in nature and not merely civil as claimed by the majority. He contended that this law allowed indefinite confinement based on a person's potential to commit future crimes, which is fundamentally inconsistent with constitutional principles of due process and double jeopardy. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on Hendricks case precedent because it involved different facts and legal issues than those presented in Young’s case. In his view, labeling such laws as "civil" does not change their essentially punitive character or negate their potential for abuse.