Kahler v. Kansas

The case asked whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments let a state abolish the traditional insanity defense. The Supreme Court said Kansas could use its narrower rule and affirmed the Kansas Supreme Court.

The Court affirmed the Kansas Supreme Court, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

The decision gives states room to define insanity rules differently in criminal cases. For example, a defendant with severe mental illness may be allowed to argue he lacked criminal intent, but not that he should be excused because he could not tell right from wrong.

This Supreme Court case is over. Kansas's law remains in place, and any further changes would have to come from state lawmakers or future cases.

The Court considered whether the Constitution requires states to keep a traditional insanity defense. Kansas instead allowed mental illness evidence mainly to challenge criminal intent.

Defendants with serious mental illness in states with narrow insanity rules are most affected. Prosecutors, trial judges, and state lawmakers are affected too.

Nothing more happens in this Supreme Court case because the Court has finished this docket action. Kansas's rule stays in effect unless lawmakers change it or later cases revisit it.