New York Judge Recognizes Registry Harm but Denies Relief
New York Judge Recognizes Registry Harm but Denies Relief
The judge saw the harm. She still left the rules in place.
A public registry can cost someone their privacy and damage their reputation. A federal judge in New York recognized those harms. But on November 6, 2026, she turned down Hilary Best’s request for a temporary pause.
Hilary Best asked the court to stop New York from sharing his registry information with the public. He also asked it to block certain enforcement actions over his reporting duties and a dispute about where he lived.
Judge Nina R. Morrison found that the threats of enforcement Best described were too uncertain. But she saw the loss of privacy and harm to his reputation as real. She also looked at what the rules require him to do, including checking in with police to confirm his address every 90 days for life.
“Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has a liberty interest at stake when he is forced to comply with SORA’s registration requirements.”
In plain language, the judge found that the harm to Best’s reputation, combined with the demands of reporting, affected a freedom the Constitution protects. The court put that harm on the record, even though Best did not get the temporary relief he asked for.
Why did the judge say no?
To get a temporary pause, Best also had to show he was likely to win. The judge said his 2007 conviction gave New York a separate legal reason to require him to register. Best also did not say the state had denied him the hearing available to challenge his risk level. The judge found that he had not shown he was likely to win his claims about fair process, privacy, or equal treatment.
The order only decided whether to pause the rules. It did not settle the whole case. For people who live under these rules and the families who share their lives, it matters that a court put the harm into words.
Read the court’s November 6 order in Best v. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
From the FAC archives: In 2021, FAC covered Kenneth Petty’s challenge to his New York registry listing. Petty alleged that he was denied a chance to challenge his placement. Best did not claim he was denied the hearing available to challenge his risk level.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Recognizing the harm and leaving it in place makes them complicit with and condoning the actions of the harm being done.
With all due respect to those in robes on benches across the nation, you are better than doing this and those seeking relief to help them move along is something you need to take more seriously. Don’t complain when those who are looking to you for help are denied by your own hand and no one else will help them.
Judge Matsch and RBG both recognized the harms (or onerous and burdensome reqs other Fed courts have opined but decided to not do anything in the alleged name of “safety” which is debatable to begin with). Why can’t you?