Author: FAC Contributor #3

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Thursday that a transgender woman cannot change her name because she is on the state’s sex offender registry and the law does not allow people on the registry to change their names. The dissenting justices agreed that Ella’s arguments alleging an Eighth Amendment violation of cruel and unusual punishment fail. But they said

It’s rare to see a pro-se (self represented) litigant’s case proceed past the initial stages. It’s even more rare when the case involves a challenge to the registry. Now imagine how rare it is for that to happen in two separate cases, on the same day, in two separate districts of Tennessee! Clayborn v. Lee, No. 3: 22-cv-00458 (M.D. Tenn.

This case was argued but a decision has not been rendered yet. Still, this is an insightful analysis of the Montana Registration Statute. Richard Denver Hinman appeals from his conviction underMontana Code Annotated § 46–23–507, failure to register as a sexoffender, in the Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County.1The Montana Supreme Court will review: (i) whether the retroactiveapplication of

MSORA has been amended many times since its enactment. Over the lasttwenty–five years, changes to the statute have generally made compliance moredifficult until the Sixth Circuit invalidated the entire statute under federal law. Asubsequent Michigan Supreme Court decision also nullified the statute on state lawgrounds. Amendments enacted after the Sixth Circuit’s decision vastly reduced theobligations and restrictions imposed on sex

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s decision finding lifetime GPS monitoring for people with two or more sexual offense convictions does not violate the 4th Amendment. The opinion can be read here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2022/D06-21/C:20-1059:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2893118:S:0