Brief filed in Louisiana branded driver’s license case.
Last week, the brief in opposition was filed in Louisiana v. Hill, a case the State of Louisiana would like the Supreme Court of the United States to hear. The issues in that case are: (1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation.
In this battle, a registrant scratched off the words “sex offender” on his Louisiana drivers license and was arrested. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that branding the label “sex offender” on the license violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech and prohibiting someone from removing that objectionable language from their license (essentially forcing them to advertise the label they object to) also violates the first amendment. The State then jumped through a few procedural hoops, such as trying to get a stay, which didn’t work, and is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
We care about this case for a number of reasons… First, and most obviously, Florida also brands our drivers licenses, so a win in the highest court could certainly benefit us. Second, the federal government brands our passports (you can read more about that here: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6086&context=mlr). While they will try to argue that a passport is not the same as a driver’s license, it’s sure the same concept. Third, because the Attorneys general of the states of Oklahoma, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia all filed an amicus brief on behalf of Louisiana, so who knows what currently exists or what is being contemplated in those states? And finally, it’s just wrong!
A copy of the brief in opposition can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1587/187241/20210811132211867_2021-08-11%2020-1587%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf
The likelihood of the case getting picked up for consideration by the Supreme Court is small. They select only a handful of the thousands of cases they have to chose from. On one hand I’m hoping it gets picked up because a win could potentially knock out our own state’s branded license requirement. On the other hand, sometimes the court picks a case because there is something in the lower court’s decision they feel compelled to correct. We certainly wouldn’t want that. Also, if they chose not to hear the case, the lower court’s decision stands, and that decision was a good one.
Whatever decision is made, we’ll be watching for it.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WILL ALLEN..
I truly believe with every fiber of my being that judges know full well the registry is cruel and punitive by design and intent.
How many registrants have been MURDERED because of the unfettered public access to the registry? Then look at the despicable ruling the 10th Circuit issued after one brave, honest judge hit the nail on the head and pointed out that the cruel and unusual punishment of the registry comes from the fact it is public and that the public is willing and fully capable of using the information to mete out vigilante violence. The 10th Circuit basically said, “Yeah, it feels just like punishment, but it isn’t”
Look at how the 7th Circuit just reversed itself in an en banc re-hearing where PFRs won a great victory regarding being treated differently than registrants who haven’t moved and came back…
I can’t recall the case citation, but I remember a glaring statement a judge made. It went to the effect of “This court has no interest in eviscerating the registry.” How much more plain can it be said? That statement told me there were grounds that judge could have done exactly that, but he or she chose not to.
Once someone commits a sexual crime, PARTICULARLY AGAINST A PRETEEN CHILD, society believes such a person should forfeit all human and constitutional rights and be put to death in the most agonizingly slow method humanly possible. Anything short of this horrible end is justice denied in the eyes of far too many.
I truly believe even judges let their hate influence their rulings. Look at the recent 7th Circuit ruling where the court overturned itself en banc. How is it that the justice who wrote the dissent when the panel gave registrants a victory was allowed to write the majority opinion that pulled that victory and turned it into a defeat?
Can we stop with swatting of the hornet’s nest regarding certain topics that some find offensive? I’m not offended by I’m getting annoyed with people stirring the pot just to create division. If you want me to name names I will, Enough already!!
Wonder if registrants along the gulf coast of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be allowed to stay in shelters as Tropical Storm Ida approaches. My money is on they’ll be denied all because of the registry. Yup not punishment, inhuman or offensive to them and their families.
Out of all the people who think PFRs should be excluded from storm shelters, what percentage of them do you think actually believe that improves the safety there? I’d really love to just know the reality of that. I’m not sure a survey could get the reality. For example, I think a LOT of people would say that they support exclusions and also say that it was for safety, but the real reason would be something else. They might not even know it. And MOST people living in America can’t take 2 minutes to do any deep thought about anything before they think they are an expert and have an opinion. So a survey alone probably wouldn’t be enough.
Personally, I think a person would have to be just really, really dumb to actually believe that excluding any group of people would change the safety situation in any predictable, useful way. I can’t imagine I’d ever go to such a shelter but if I did, I wouldn’t be trusting anyone there. Even if they excluded all the awful PFRs that would be trying to sex me and my family.
When I see a person talking about excluding PFRs it feels all cringey and I feel disgusted and embarrassed for the person. I’m thinking the person is either shockingly stupid or just evil. No matter what they sound like, I hear a low-I.Q. monkey talking in a “redneck” voice.