In the 1966 case of Specht v. Patterson, Warden et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Donald Specht, who had been convicted and sentenced under Colorado's Sex Offenders Act without a separate hearing on his mental condition as required by due process. The court held that this violated his constitutional rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not provide him with an opportunity for a hearing on whether he was mentally ill or dangerous before sentencing him to potentially indefinite confinement at a state hospital for sex offenders. This decision emphasized that even when dealing with sexual offenses, states must still respect individuals' constitutional rights and cannot bypass these protections in their efforts to protect public safety.

In the dissenting opinion for Specht v. Patterson, it was argued that there is no constitutional requirement to provide a jury trial before imposing an extended sentence under Colorado's Sex Offenders Act. The dissenters believed that the majority misinterpreted and overextended previous Supreme Court decisions related to due process rights in sentencing proceedings. They contended that these cases did not establish a right to a jury trial when determining facts relevant to sentencing but only required notice and opportunity for hearing - which they believe were provided in this case. Furthermore, they pointed out that many states have similar laws allowing judges discretion in extending sentences based on their assessment of an offender's potential danger or likelihood of recidivism without providing additional procedural protections like those demanded by the majority decision.