Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) does not violate equal protection rights of sexually violent predators who are subject to different treatment than mentally disordered offenders. Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the SVPA under which he was committed, contending that it violates the ex post facto and double jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions, as well as his rights to due process and equal protection of the law. He conceded that the California Supreme Court has ruled against him on his due process, ex post facto, and double jeopardy claims. He further conceded that upon remand by the California Supreme Court, the appellate ruled against in him in People v. McKee (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (McKee II) on the equal protection issue. However, he argued that McKee II was wrongly decided and should not be followed. Held: Affirmed. Every published opinion to consider the issue has concluded the applicable version of the SVPA passes constitutional muster under the strict scrutiny test and has found McKee II persuasive. The court agreed with these opinions. The court also declined to consider whether recent amendments to the SVPA violate an SVP’s due process rights because the amendments were not in effect when appellant was adjudged an SVP.