McKune v. Lile

536 U.S. 24, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2002)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

McKune v. Lile

United States Supreme Court
536 U.S. 24, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2002)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

McKune (defendant) was convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated kidnapping. McKune had maintained that the intercourse was consensual. While incarcerated, McKune was ordered to participate in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) designed to rehabilitate sex offenders. Two requirements for those participating in the SATP were signing an admission-of-responsibility form that acknowledged an acceptance of responsibility for the crime for which they were sentenced and completing a sexual-history form. The sexual-history form had to include all prior sexual activities, even if they constituted uncharged criminal offenses. The information obtained from SATP participants was not privileged, and new information had the potential to be used against sex offenders in future proceedings. Failure to participate in the SATP would result in a reduction of privilege status, which entailed a reduction in visitation rights, earnings, work opportunities, ability to send family money, canteen spending, access to personal television, and other privileges. Failure to participate in the SATP would also result in a transfer from a two-person cell in a medium-security unit to a four-person cell in a maximum-security unit. The maximum-security unit was potentially more dangerous. McKune refused to participate in the SATP on the grounds that requiring disclosures of criminal history is a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. McKune brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and the court granted his motion for summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership