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.
The US Supreme Court consistently refuses to hear case involving PFRs. The reason is because they are well aware of the severe Constitutional violations that the Registry entails. To hear such a case and apply Constitutional law as required they would be forced to grant relief to all PFR s across America, which they most certainly do not want to do. These judges sworn an Oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution! By consistently refusing to address a certain class of citizens Constitutional Rights violations they are not only violating their Oath to Office but proving the extent of their continued bias against a Constitutionally protected class of citizens effectively stripping them of their Right tobe heard in Court in a fair and unbiased manner! They should be removed from the bench and stripped of their BAR Licenses!
In general, nearly 99% of cases are denied certiorari, without explanation. Most of those cases don’t involve registry-related issues.
David:
The case was refused because the only two circuits that ruled on the sign issue (8th and 11th) were pretty much in lock step agreement – the signs are unconstitutional, period. The Missouri AG attempted to equate the sign requirement with the general SORNA disclosures upheld everywhere else. That is NOT a split among the circuits, which is usually the first requirement for the USSC to agree to hear a case.
Personally, I wish they would have accepted the case, as all SORNA disclosures could have been addressed as well, for better or worse.
Glad to see this!
Thank goodness. I was sohhhh disappointed our states AG put his name on this.
Since this is how the US Supreme Court judged, it is also compelled speech for everyone on the registry who has a sign ‘sexual predator’,etc. posted in their yard by the sheriff’s office.
It is also compelled speech and a violation of the 1st amendment to be restricted from hanging up or displaying Christmas decorations outside.
This judgement has broad implications for everyone since it is from the US Supreme Court!!
The US Supreme Court cannot speak out of both sides of its own mouth due to this judgement!!
Just so we’re all on the same page… There is no judgment from the US Supreme Court. They declined to hear the case. Accordingly, they made no decision and entered no order on the merits.
The court denied certiorari, meaning they declined to hear the State’s appeal, leaving the 8th Circuit’s opinion intact. There are no implications.
It was the 8th Circuit who said that the sign requirement cannot withstand the legalities for compelled speech and because the US Supreme Court declined to hear it, the judgement still stands that signs in a front yard imposed by a government entity is, in fact, compelled speech, which means there is a permanent judgement, at least by the 8th Circuit, that those signs put in the front yard of Floridians are a violation of the 1st amendment.
Most courts follow higher Stare Decisis.
If this were to come up again, for say Florida, the US Supreme Court would refuse to hear it under the same precedents.
I don’t see how having any sign in your front yard without your permission could be anything but compelled speech and the 8th Circuit agreed with that and their judgement stands permanent and no lower courts would dare attempt to bring it before the US Supreme Court, at least for quite some time.
I should have said ‘since the US Supreme Court judged not to hear the argument, the 8th Circuit Appellate Court judgement still stands’.
Yes. But it’s only applicable to the 8th circuit area. This is good but doesn’t help those in other states other than using the same arguments and as a reference.
• Arkansas (Eastern and Western districts)
• Iowa (Northern and Southern districts)
• Minnesota (District of Minnesota)
• Missouri (Eastern and Western districts)
• Nebraska (District of Nebraska)
• North Dakota (District of North Dakota)
• South Dakota (District of South Dakota)
To clarify, the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue and did not rule on it.
That cadre who have so much hate in their hearts as to deny a whole swath of the citizenry of the US their most basic constitutional protections have, today, been abashed!
Their hatred is so loud and obscene that they presume to deny these rights under the very color of law!!
They slant and twist and rupture the truth under the banner of “public safety” when, in fact, they are plainly expressing a jealous and ugly hatred! This hate must end!! This government hate list must end! This perversion and pustule of US justice called the registry must end!!
This is how the ripple starts: one person stands up, and that courage gives other families hope to keep going. Thank you to the plaintiff, Janice Bellucci, and everyone who helped carry this fight forward. Each hard-earned victory reminds our community that we are not alone and that change is worth fighting for. This registry infrastructure reaches the smallest areas of everyday life.
I agree, however, I’m angered by how our own government seeks to sap us by throwing more and more legal shackles on us, while the public has no problem letting them spend with a bottomless cash reserve to make them stick. Meanwhile we have to give up or put off things like home or car purchases, retirement savings, or helping our children go to college, etc. just to defend against these piled on restrictions so we can keep our lives at an equilibrium. Shame on our country and our fellow Americans for allowing this!
Our legal system should make the government pay the legal fees of a plaintiff in every civil rights suit that wins. That could stop, or at least, slow down this insanity.