Good News! A Halloween Sign the Supreme Court Won’t Hear.
Just in! The Supreme Court of the United States today declined Missouri’s request to review a ruling striking down the state’s requirement that people on the sex-offender registry post a “No candy or treats at this residence” sign on Halloween.
Justice Samuel Alito said he would have granted review. But that’s just a vote to hear the case, not a decision on the merits. The bottom line is that the Eighth Circuit’s ruling that forcing a registrant to display the state’s message violated the First Amendment will stand!
This is great news for the plaintiff (obviously) and great news for Janice Bellucci, the plaintiff’s attorney and executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL). This is also good news for registrants in the 8th Circuit who now have this precedent. It’s also good news for registrants across the United States facing similar requirements and who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff (Note, before anyone asks if this makes any difference in Florida – it’s not binding, but it’s persuasive).
The extent of the order is: 26-34 HANAWAY, ATT’Y GEN. MO., ET AL. V. SANDERSON, THOMAS The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know there’s a line of thinking that says the high court did not rule on this case at hand. However, they did rule in a sense of denying cert to the MO AG, et al who signed on to the case.
While it would be helpful to know for what reason(s) they denied cert, e.g., not enough votes to accept, didn’t accept the reasoning stated (split circuits), etc., this becomes a line in the sand to other states to think twice about enforcing such a law or even challenging the challenge a PFR may present to such a law. This losing challenge couples with the other two Fed cases from the Bible Belt which are similar to this one in creating a pretty decent foundation of prohibiting this action.
Frankly, I dare LE to attempt to enforce this action if there is such a law in place that isn’t already prohibited by these opinions. Would love to see the prohibition spread into other districts, other circuits so PFRs aren’t just protected, but the US Constitution is fortified as it should be and not diluted as we’ve seen too much of late by those in robes and elected offices.