Seling v. Young — Scalia, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Scalia concurring agreed with the Court’s holding that a civil statute cannot be deemed punitive as applied for Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto purposes. He clarified that courts cannot consider actual conditions of confinement in the first-instance determination of whether a statute is civil or criminal, relying on Hudson v. United States. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing conditions of confinement are relevant evidence of the statutory scheme's nature. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, agreeing that implementation conditions cannot divest a facially civil statute of its civil character.