UPDATED: 9th Circuit rules in favor of registrants in Ex Post Facto clase.
CORRECTION: The 9th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal on ex post facto grounds. In essence, they are telling the district court they were wrong in dismissing the case and it has been remanded.
From the opinion, “Appellants, 134 men and women registered as sex offenders in Idaho, claim that the retroactive application of Idaho’s Sexual Offender Registration Notification and Community Right-to-Know Act, Idaho Code § 18-8301, et seq. (“SORA”) is unconstitutional. According to the First Amended Complaint, a series of amendments to SORA have heightened registrants’ registration and notification obligations and imposed direct restrictions on registrants’ movement, housing, and employment. Further, all amendments to SORA have been applied retroactively to all Idaho sex offender registrants. Appellants argue that these retroactively imposed provisions are unconstitutional, in part because they violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The district court granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss, dismissing all of Appellants’ claims. Because we find the district court erred in dismissing the ex post facto and free exercise claims, we reverse in part. Additionally, because the district court predicated its dismissal of the Eighth Amendment and double jeopardy claims on its dismissal of the ex post facto claim,we hold that those judgments were also in error, though we reserve judgment on the merits of those claims.”
Read the full opinion here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/09/19-35391.pdf
The following districts are in the 9th Circuit:
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Central District of California
- Eastern District of California
- Northern District of California
- Southern District of California
- Guam
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Montana
- Nevada
- Northern Mariana Islands
- Oregon
- Eastern District of Washington
- Western District of Washington
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a huge victory. There are 12 circuit court of appeals and these are the courts directly below the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court hears only a very small number of cases. The Circuit Court of Appeals’ issue a far larger number of decisions which have a greater impact overall.
This decision swept away dozens if not hundreds of bad decisions. So now 2 of the 12 circuit court have ruled favorably. Even though this isn’t as sweeping as the 6th Circuit win, it is nevertheless a huge victory. Registrants in the 9th Circuit now have to build on this victory.
This is one hell of a shift in the 9th Circuit. This is sure to start an avalanche of litigation. Successful litigation at that.
David M:
Doe v Alaska was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so is still intact.
This decision Is “for publication” so can be cited as president.
#thetruthisslowlycomingout.
I’m sure that everyone already knows that the lawyer behind the Alaska case is not going to want to admit he used false data and reverse a case that more than likely got him his seat on the highest court in the land, never-mind the fact that every case that cites Smith v. Alaska he must (I assume) recuse himself places that much more of a burden on said case because a tie is still a potential lose.
Now we are talking
” This case concerns the adjudication of important rights for a whole class of people, so allowing it to proceed with such inartful briefing runs a high risk of ultimately harming the very parties the briefing purports to protect”
Throughout this Courts opinion they seemed to be annoyed by inartful briefings as “throwing everything against the wall until something sticks”.
Hope the attorneys got the message.
Good news.
Does this overturn the previous case out of Alaska?