16 States Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Missouri Halloween Sign Case
Today, a coalition of 16 states, led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and joined by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (of course), filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Hanaway v. Sanders (the case that challenged Missouri’s law requiring individuals on the sex offender registry to post a sign on Halloween stating, “No candy or treats at this residence.”) Note that this was the case that ACSOL attorney Janice Bellucci won. The brief argues that the requirement is a factual public safety notice that regulates conduct rather than speech and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
While additional amicus support can sometimes signal broader interest in a case, this particular filing is unlikely to move the needle very much. The brief largely repeats the arguments already made by Missouri, characterizing the sign requirement as an incidental burden on speech and relying heavily on established compelled-speech and conduct-regulation cases.
More importantly, the Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and grants review in only a small percentage of them. A dispute over a Halloween sign requirement—however important it may be to those directly affected—may simply not rise to the level of national significance the Court typically looks for when deciding which cases to hear.
That doesn’t mean the petition has no chance. It does mean it’s probably nothing to lose sleep over. At this point, the filing of another amicus brief is just one more step in the certiorari process, not an indication that the Supreme Court is likely to take up the case.
You can read their brief here: Sanderson v Hanaway Halloween Amicus
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They risk exposing the entire ramshackle scheme when arguing the “critical” merits of signage placement to SCOTUS. The entire popluation needs to be forced to ackknowledge that the registry is a scam and a gimmick-based measure built upon the lies and emotions of victims. It’s about pettiness, revenge and control. Not public safety, much less protecting children.
@Facts
Not all victims were minors and yet every one of us has been called a child molester or a predator or a long list of other things I cannot even repeat.
Many of us had a crime closing in on 40 years, and yet we are still a threat? Are we just waiting for that moment to offend again just for fun? Yes, some I hate to say are not too smart and get caught up in a sting (After they had already been arrested before).
It is one thing to get re-arrested for a paper error, and another for another sex crime or attempt. But all roads lead to the same place, jail and even if freed, getting off the registry is most likely not an option. I am not perfect and have done some really dumb things in my lifetime. But I am trying to reach that goal of being removed from registration, but they keep making it so hard that many give up. And lastly, I weep for those who can be removed, but just do not have the huge amount of money it cost to hire a lawyer. Some of us barely have enough money to pay our bills.
I cant have him at the bust stop, parent/teacher conference. I cant have have a playdate with my son’s best friend. Im not sure who at the bust stop made a report so my husband cant go to first day of school hes scared to try. I know what I signed up for. But I was thinking about me. Now we have kids. I don’t want them to think his dad did wrong, because he didn’t.