Whether the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause forbids the civil-commitment trial of an incompetent person whose prior conduct is disputed

QUESTION PRESENTED Oliver White is incompetent. And the Federal Government now seeks to civilly commit him as a “sexually dangerous person” under the Adam Walsh Act for what would likely be the rest of his life. To obtain a commitment order, the Government must prove, among other things, that Mr. White “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5). Mr. : White has never been convicted of any crime, so the Government would need to prove its case at a trial. It is well-settled, though, that “the criminal trial of an incompetent person violates due process” because competency is the foundation for exercise of “those rights deemed essential to a fair trial, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the rights to summon, to confront, and to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to testify on one’s own behalf or to remain silent without penalty for doing so.” Cooper ; v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996) (citations omitted). And it is equally well-settled that “civil labels and good intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards” in cases where the issue is whether a person committed a past act and the person’s liberty is at stake. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365-366 (1970). The question presented is: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process : Clause forbids the civil-commitment trial of an incompetent person whose prior conduct is disputed. @) ;