ACSOL: Federal District Court Dismisses IML Challenge
A federal district court dismissed the recent IML challenge yesterday when it granted the government’s Motion to Dismiss a legal challenge to the International Megan’s Law (IML). That challenge, filed in January 2018, was based upon alleged violations by the State Department of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A link to the court’s decision follows below.
Due to the court’s decision, the State Department is expected to expand its revocation of existing passports in order to add a “unique identifier” stating that the individual has been convicted of a sex offense involving a minor. The State Department is also expected to add a “unique identifier” to newly issued passports.
“We disagree strongly with the court’s decision in this case and we will seriously consider filing an appeal of that decision,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The State Department’s failure to request and consider comments from the public, including individuals required to register, could result in harm, including physical harm, to registrants who travel overseas as well as to those with whom they travel.”
According to the courts’ decision, the contested regulations issued by the State Department are “interpretive rules” and therefore exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. That is because the agency’s regulations — which include denial of passport cards — merely clarified “minor ambiguities” in the language of the IML.
In its decision, the court included a brief discussion of the notification provisions of the IML which allow the U.S. government to notify other governments that an individual convicted of a sex offense involving a minor will soon travel to that country. In its discussion, the court emphasized that such notices could be sent with regard to anyone who has suffered such a conviction regardless of whether they are currently required to register.
“In a prior challenge to the IML, the federal government testified that although they have the authority to send notices about a person who is not currently required to register, they have chosen not to exercise that authority,” stated Bellucci. “Unfortunately, there are already known situations where the government has sent notices to other countries about such persons.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a MAJOR defeat for the civil and human rights of registered citizens 🙁
This essentially revokes the rights of registered citizens to leave the country.
I don’t think it’s a major defeat. This case was about administrative procedures, not the substance of the law.
I wish I could get a new passport that indicates that I am a “convicted” person and then sue the govt for defamation, since Florida never “convicted” me (they just registered me).
Same. Let me know if they make you get a passport mark. Having to do all this without being convicted shouldn’t even be legal in the first place. Can’t think of any other charge where they don’t convict but still punish you like they did.
Should be interesting..i just received my renewed passport without any ‘graphitti’ on it and also received a passport card(I didnt ask for one nor did I pay the extra fee)..I reside on a small island here in the Caribbean..I am wondering how they theif back the passport or card..I can just say I lost them?!?!?!
This unconstititional situation is based on Megan, Adam, Jacob etc..I never met those people..I do not have anything to do with them, why, why, why?
Therefore , there also MUST be registries for those who committ gun.crimes, felony DUIs, Drug Crimes,..
then registries for every felon!
This whole IML is a freskin joke
Following this unconstitutional act by the US government. Any wonder our government is so fouled up!
“Unfortunately, there are already known situations where the government has sent notices to other countries about such persons.”
I’d be interested in seeing the details about those situations. I bet the government articulated a clear threat in each of those cases, otherwise why were they monitoring someone not in the registry? Those citizens were likely under investigation for plotting to commit sex crimes at their destination, and I suspect all of them were traveling to known sex tourism destinations.
That is a world apart from a registered person, not under any investigation traveling to say… Scottland for a family wedding.
No one questions that the state department has the authority to warn other nations of known threats, but there is no due process for the rest of us that warrant the specific language in a Green Notice that we are likely to commit further crimes at our destinations.
Doesn’t matter where you want to travel the point is you should have the right to do so unmolested vacation business sightseeing the place doesn’t matter and your reasons are your own
Two steps forward one step back
More like one step forward, three steps back!
I apologize to all for this comment.
What is happening, has already happened. History is repeating itself. This is 1934-1941 Germany all over again.
The having to carry “papers”
The yellow star on your “papers, houses, clothing”.
Deprivation of your rights as a citizen.
Restricted movement.
When is the government going to start rounding us up, putting us on trains and shipping us off to “work Camps”?
When are we going to be shot or gassed “for the good of man”???