Federal district court finds Alabama’s residency restrictions violate First Amendment

First published at Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL)

 

“According to the court, one part of the challenged residency restrictions adversely could affect the ability of registrants to attend church, participate in political events, visit family, and access public libraries.  Another part of the challenged restrictions could prohibit registrants from spending the night in a hospital emergency room or run in a marathon.”

SOURCE


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Federal district court finds Alabama’s residency restrictions violate First Amendment

  • May 29, 2024

    Ok so he is appealing the ruling https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27407560/McGuire_et_al_v_Marshall_et_al

    And according to this https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/#:~:text=Decisions%20by%20all%20three%20district,Eleventh%20Circuit%20Court%20of%20Appeals. the next appeal stop is the 11th circuit which is us.

    So this could affect us here in Florida so we need to keep tabs on this case.

    Remember this man waited 7 years for this ruling he committed his offense before the registry existed I think he’s a really good plaintiff.

    Reply
    • May 29, 2024

      Appears from this that the state is appealing, not the registrant, but someone with Pacer can confirm.

      If the state prevails, then that would allow Florida to make SORRs (and even presence restrictions) more expansive and vague than they are already.

      Reply
  • May 26, 2024

    Now we have a 11th circuit split with Georgia and Florida having living restrictions and Alabama having come to see the light now so it is not ok.
    Lets see if the AG tells the lawyers to appeal the ruling to make the 11th pick it back up, if they do then Florida and Georgia might finally be done with living restrictions if we finally get a just ruling.

    [Moderator’s note: The court writes, on Page 2 of the linked opinion, “this opinion does not consider the constitutionality of sex-offender residency restrictions generally, but only aspects of Alabama’s residency provision in its current form”].

    Reply

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 *