Because a New York Sex Offender Registration Act proceeding implicates a fundamental liberty interest, requires complex factfinding that necessitates the registrant's input, and includes, by statute, a robust set of due process protections, does the Due Process Clause require the registrant to be competent at that proceeding?

QUESTION PRESENTED Darryl Watts, a mentally disabled 65-year-old man, has a 50-year history of hospitalizations due to debilitating schizophrenia and psychosis. He has spent most of the last 13 years civilly committed. At the time of his New York Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determine his risk of recidivism, upon which the extent of his registration and notification requirements would be based, he was indisputably incompetent. New York recognizes that SORA implicates a protected liberty interest and provides due process rights at its hearings: i.e., the registrant has the right to notice, pre-hearing discovery, presence, counsel, to present and contest evidence, and to have the prosecution prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); N.Y. Corr. L. § 168-n. The New York Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, held that there is no right to competency at a SORA hearing and, therefore, incompetency does not eviscerate these extant rights nor violate due process. The question presented is: Because a New York Sex Offender Registration Act proceeding implicates a fundamental liberty interest, requires complex factfinding that necessitates the registrant’s input, and includes, by statute, a robust set of due process protections, does the Due Process Clause require the registrant to be competent at that proceeding?