A lawsuit was filed today in the Central District of the U.S. District Court of California challenging regulations issued by the State Department that announced the addition of a “unique identifier” to the passports of some registrants. Addition of the identifier to passports could affect more than 500,000 Americans and their families.
“The State Department violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it failed to provide the public with an opportunity to comment upon its regulations,” stated ACSOL Executive Director and attorney Janice Bellucci. “As a result of the State Department’s significant violations, we are asking the Court to order the agency to begin again its regulatory process.”
According to the lawsuit, the State Department issued the regulations in September 2016 and October 2017. The agency declared the first regulation to be a “final rule” and did not request public comment before taking effect. The agency issued the second regulation in the form of a press release which was later posted on the agency’s website.
In its regulations, the State Department also declared that it will not issue passport cards to some registrants. According to the lawsuit, Congress did not provide the State Department with this authority, but instead required the State Department to add a unique identifier to passport cards issued to some registrants.
The plaintiffs in the case include the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, a national non-profit organization, as well as two registrants who reside in the Central District. One of the registrants has an existing passport without an identifier and is concerned that his passport could be revoked while he is traveling overseas. The second registrant does not yet have a passport and is afraid to apply for one because it would include a unique identifier.
“The possibility of having a unique identifier added to their passports has had a dramatic chilling effect upon hundreds of thousands of American citizens,” stated Bellucci. “Due to this concern, they are choosing either not to travel overseas or not to apply for a passport.”
The United States, in the past, has not added a unique identifier to the passport of any American citizen. The only countries known to have done this in the past are Germany and Russia.
Related
Call-in meeting regarding International Megan’s Law (IML) on Jan 30
Related Media
Wow…this is something…. Let me see, we can’t freely travel to another state without registering in that particular state within the borders of our country because our state thinks we are a horrible bunch of people who can’t travel to another state within the borders of our own country , then, we can’t freely travel to visit to another country because the host country thinks we are too bad of a bunch of people to visit because our own country thinks we are a horrible bunch of people who can’t freely travel because our own country thinks we will commit a crime in the host country we would like to visit so our country don’t want us to visit other countries, period.
Am I reading this right?
Might as well issue a lifetime house arrest…it feels the same…
I am currently traveling abroad and was notified by the State Department, that my passport has been revoked. I had to go to the U. S. Consulate and apply for a new passport with the indentifier included. If that new passport won’t allow me into the countries I wish to travel to, I will be forced to return to the United States which continually punishes me for a crime that I served my time for and have led a redemptive live since.
So California has sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, even one for illegal felon immigrants, but they want to take the freedom of travel or make it more dangerous for American citizens to travel. They don’t even know the backgrounds of most of the illegal immigrants in our country, but lets punish the legal Americans here. WOW!!!!
Wishing Janice and ACSOL the best and hopefully we can get this win. She has been on a roll racking up wins for registrants in California, so I’m confident at the very least.
Did not thi k the state department can be a punative agency. There is the mandate to protect the interests of us nationals not issue punative policy nor implement jusgement nor sentencing as it seems to be doing.
I already have my passport and whether I travel or not they will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands to get it back. I didn’t serve my country for 29 years and work to restore my relationship with my daughter to have some ‘penny ante” bureaucrat ruin my life, my identification, and my daughter and family’s lives.
I want to travel outside of the country so badly but won’t even apply for a passport what’s the point if I’m going to be denied entry into a country I want to visit or have to be in fear for my and my family’s safety if I am admitted.. What about the registrants that traveled overseas on business without incident this will cost them their jobs This law protects people from a imaginary threat.
Well the passport suit wont help as with or without it rso s are still forbidden from countries no matter whats on your passport. All it would do is eliminate the marker but we are still marked….
Not exactly correct.
Part of IML is the notification of receiving countries that a registrants is traveling there.
The reason why many registrants get turned away is because of the “green notice” sent by the US – informing them that a registrant is traveling there for potentially nefarious reasons.
Thought that was in place irregardless of the marker. So the iml goes so does the notification? Is the suit really agaist the whole thing or just the marker? Seemed it was just about the identifier not the angelwatch system. Good if its the whole thing!
I believe so. To my understanding, the agency was notifying countries before IML ” unofficially ” by the green notices, but by passing IML and including those notifications to other countries, they made it ” official ” . I would think this is a good thing, because now it can be attacked with more solidarity than before, when addressing IML in court. It can maybe show how much of a burden it has become to registrants when traveling for work and vacations with family.
Is there maybe a due process complaint against the use of a Green Notice? The language of the notice says
“To provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.”
The use of the word likely, even though it is the standard language of the notice, suggests some increased chance of offending.
“Probable and likely are synonyms.” Anderson v. Bell, 303 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Mo. 1957).
We are subject to IML because of our obligation to register as known sex offenders, not probable sex reoffenders.
I understand that the Marshall service is still compelled to report our travels but forcing them come up with a new administrative solution could 1) allow more offenders to travel and 2) make the government rethink how invested it wants to be.
We all just need to start vacationing in beautiful Hamilton Township, New Jersey where Representative Chris Smith actually resides in the state he represents for a month or so every year.
He sponsored IML, if he is afraid of us outside of the country I’m sure he’d appreciate being able to keep a personal eye on us in his own back yard.
Plus I’m sure the local PD would enjoy having to mass register a hundred or so vacationing RSO’s a few times a year.