ACSOL: Federal Court Denies Injunction, Allows Amended Complaint and New Motion

Source: ACSOL

A federal court today denied a motion requesting a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the SORNA regulations.  The court’s decision was based upon a determination that the sole individual plaintiff, John Doe, lacks legal standing because he has already registered for the time period required by his SORNA tier.  The judge then provided plaintiffs with an opportunity to file an amended complaint within 14 days as well as to file a subsequent motion for preliminary injunction.

During today’s hearing, the parties discussed whether SORNA regulations apply to individuals who have earned a dismissal and/or been granted a certificate of rehabilitation.  The government argued that the SORNA regulations do not need to clarify SORNA’s application to such individuals because “it’s for the registrant to decide” if SORNA applies to him or her.

The Court appeared to reject the government’s argument and explained that federal criminal liability requires a clear statement regarding to whom the SORNA regulations apply.  The Court also opined that, if SORNA regulations do not clearly state the individuals to whom they apply, then the regulations are “unintelligible.”  The Court also asked how a registrant is supposed to know if they are subject to the SORNA regulations and stated that the SORNA regulations should be clear regarding the requirements in all 50 states.

During today’s hearing, the Court did not make any decisions regarding the merits of the SORNA regulations or the application of those regulations to individuals granted either a dismissal or a certificate of rehabilitation.


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

32 thoughts on “ACSOL: Federal Court Denies Injunction, Allows Amended Complaint and New Motion

    • October 3, 2022

      I suppose that means embezzlers will be able to get jobs at banks, arsonists will get jobs at fire departments, drug dealers will get jobs at pharmacies, but the registrant will still be unable to even get a job picking up roadside trash.
      Sounds fair.

      Reply
  • September 29, 2022

    I watched this and like everyone here I was shocked when she said the “registrant to decide”. I thought the judge was good in allowing to amend.

    I am confused as to the over all case and it seems only this one little thing is being challenged about whether or not someone has a….oh what was it? Expungement? I think. So the case effects nothing else?

    Reply
  • September 28, 2022

    Hey FAC is it possible to use those response letters about hurricane procedures for SO’S in our pending lawsuits? Im not a legal expert but maybe lawyers can find some legal issues and add them to the discovery before our expostfacto cases go to trial. Just a thought, appreciate all the work yall been doing in our behalf. This whole hitlist scheme I believe might be coming to an end soon hopefully.

    Reply
    • September 28, 2022

      For what purpose?

      Reply
      • September 28, 2022

        Im talking about forcing us to either stay at our homes during hurricanes or “seek shelter” in jail. That just sounds all kinds of wrong but idk if that violates any specific laws we can bring up in court.

        Reply
        • September 29, 2022

          That’s exactly it, it’s an outrageous human rights abuse but one has to find a specific constitutional category it fits into in order to sue for a civil rights violation. Just being a registered citizen alone isn’t a protected category, and to an average person a jail looks pretty good during a natural disaster…as a structure it’s not necessarily less comfortable than a shelter.

          Seems to me that if someone has diagnosed PTSD from their previous experience of being incarcerated, they’d have a fairly good case that they’re being effectively being discriminated against due to a disability.

          Reply
          • September 29, 2022

            Hey Dennis thanks for your input, I believe it does violate some sort of due process assuming one will commit a criminal act during an emergency situation simply because of a criminal act committed in the past. Then forcing the person to separate from their families to bunker in a correctional facility because “they’re too likely to reoffend, so they can’t go to a regular shelter or anywhere else except jail”. I can see some lawyer arguing this in court, ofcoarse it’ll be a challenge but.. maybe

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *