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.
I’m waiting to see Janice Belluci sink her teeth into this. Legal research is incredibly time consuming and expensive and Janice Belluci is only one person.
Registrants who sit and complain and do nothing are absolute idiots and deserve to be on the registry. Now is the time for registrants to give generously to ACSOL. Even if registrants don’t have money, they can help out by doing legal research.
Even though this decision affects a single circuit directly, it affects every circuit and every registrant indirectly. The quickest way for someone to get off of the registry in Florida, Ohio or New York is to donate to ACSOL.
THE TIDE IS TURNING!!!
Can these people now sue for damages? The states need to be hurt to prevent them from just trying to redo these laws. The legislatures need a very bloody nose and a few broken ribs so maybe they’ll think twice before overstepping in the future. I mean this metaphorically, of course. The worst pain for a state is in the pocketbook.
How does any of this concern florida?
I’m wondering the same thing.
It’s persuasive authority in Florida federal court.
Now if more will come to understanding that this is in fact punishment and unconstitutional.
Pretty sure the court said Smith v. Doe doesn’t apply after all the amendments to Idaho’s registry since. To that, I say it’s about time – I’ve been screaming for years that all legislatures have made Smith v. Doe obsolete the year after it was decided.
I’m also encouraged because the registry (at least the ex post facto part, if not en totem) may make its way to the US Supreme Court before too long. A difference of opinion among the circuits is one of the main criteria for them to hear a case. Now they have the 6th and 10th circuits holding it unconstitutional.
Wow. Thats a very large district. Im glad they had a favorable ruling. Im curious to see if they will actually get any relief from the registry or will this district just do what Michigan did and do whatever they feel like doing.