Huge win in 8th Circuit Halloween Sign Case
Congratulations to registrants in the State of Missouri and their attorney, Janice Bellucci (ACSOL), who prevailed in the State and Police Chief’s appeal of a lower court ruling finding a Halloween Sign law, requiring registrants to post a sign at their residence on Halloween, to be compelled speech and a violation of the First Amendment.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, “In short, we agree with the district court that the sign mandate compels speech and, thus, is unconstitutional unless it can survive strict scrutiny… there was no convincing evidence presented that [the signs] add anything to advance the goal of protecting children… there is insufficient evidence to support the State’s assertion that the sign mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving its goals [of protecting children]… Accordingly, the sign mandate burdens more speech than necessary and fails strict scrutiny”.
You can read the opinion here: 8th Circuit Halloween Sign Order
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thankful for FAC and posts of everything FAC shares with us, I am so appreciative.
I was arrested 1993, three years before a FDLE website was ever created. 33 years later I am still on FDLE website.
Thanks to an arrest that charges were dropped immediately do to insufficient evidence. I petitioned the court to be released with attorney in 2022
And was unsuccessful because the paper work read “arrest” regardless of charges being dropped immediately.
When FDLE website first came out , SO’s had to register on FDLE website for 10 years before petitioning for release of the website. 3 times FDLE increased sex offenders having to stay on the FDLE website before I could ever reach the allotted time frame to petition for release.
I originally plead adjudicated withheld and was awarded by the judge in 1994.
I would have never agreed if I would have known lifetime imprisonment.
Matt
WOW, we are clones. My Charges 1991. I agreed to a plea deal to even some crimes I did not commit. Law enforcement said they had my back. Little did I know, the judge I got was a no nonsense Maximum penalty judgement judicial officer. I went back in a few years to try and get a reduction but again, no go. A third attempt happened years later before another judge and finally got a reduction, but by that time I had already served almost a decade. My sentence was 25 years.
And my retroactively applied registry for life was a game changer and not in a good way. Oh, if we only had time machines.
because I write colorful doesn’t mean I don’t write correct. Nature often issues it’s warnings in brightest reds.. I also agree it was forced speech and violates the law the government never follows. Do you think the state will drop it or perhaps have they crafted at least two new replacements? Maybe even used the courts very own ruling to fan the public angers to insure success in the next venture?
So far, we have not seen the state do any of those things.
ahh you are correct!! There is a ruling as of January second and today being the fourth the state hasn’t issued it’s next threat… Must mean because they haven’t done it in forty eight hours it won’t happen…. Bless your heart my friend, we still have ten months to go before Halloween! Why would the state reveal it’s tricks or it’s treats so early? I would love to pray you are right but history says you are not doesn’t it now?
If you talking about the 8th Circuit Case, the State will not pursue this to SCOTUS. They have already ruled on this issue. See Wooley V Manard
FAC 12 is correct
Let’s hope they don’t ask for a full bench review first as they could do within 14 days of the ruling if they desire such action from their belief. If they decide to appeal to SCOTUS, then they still get that option, but there is no guarantee they will take up the case, especially with precedent as noted.
If the state wants to pursue and keep political cred, they’ll evaluate very carefully what they want to do with taxpayer money. In the end, the people of the 8th (and 11th from prior) benefit from this ruling across the board but don’t realize it due to the plaintiff’s situation. They should be celebrating that, but don’t want to associate with the results because of this. Positive collateral consequences is a beautiful thing.
But there ARE rulings in Oklahoma that contradict this ruling. That would make SCOTUS a bit more likely to take up the case.
Oh, what a heroic triumph we’ve achieved here—a truly valiant battle against the forces of evil. But let’s be real, it’s just the brave little Dutch boy desperately jamming his finger into the crumbling dike, while the floodwaters of tyranny keep rising.
We all know the government has a thousand fresh torments already queued up in the pipeline, because nothing says “public service” like endlessly innovating new ways to crush the spirit.
After all, their noble goal is purely the humiliation and retribution of anyone they’ve graciously deemed subhuman—such compassion, such vision.
And if they genuinely cared about “protecting the children,” well, three-quarters of Congress would be proudly registered for their delightful Epstein escapades. But no, priorities.
It’s all just classic divide and conquer, with a side of bread and circuses—keep the peasants snarling at each other’s throats so they’re too busy to notice the rot at the top.
Public humiliations through the ages: stocks, chains, branding, scarlet letters, tar and feathering, gladiatorial blood sports, feeding folks to lions, burning at the stake, Jim Crow, sundown towns… same tired playbook, just a new calendar year.
Invent a handy excuse to label someone “less than human,” wrap it in pretty “moral” laws, then unleash the mob to abuse, gawk, and sneer with righteous glee.
Meanwhile, the government indulges in atrocities that make the Marquis de Sade’s wildest fantasies look like a wholesome kindergarten recital. How inspiring.
Obvious, you write colorfully. But in the interest of keeping this discussion on topic, we should all keep in mind that this case was about a registrant challenging a “no candy” sign mandate. He argued that this was compelled speech that was not narrowly tailored. Federal courts agreed, and we agree.
FAC
So We are allowed to hand candy out to kids at our house according to the ruling, but we cannot get a chance to get off the registry and move on in our lives? If we can be trusted to have children come to our door, why can’t we be given a chance to move on and get past, our past?
My point is, how many people have re-offended and everyone knows the registry is not what keeps us from re-offending. If someone is Hell bent on re-offending and ruining their lives once again, that is on them. But the state of Florida makes it a collective punishment where if one re-offends; a new law comes out and ALL of us suffer.
Have you looked at the ruling? It’s in the link.
In my county at least, as long as you’re not on paper there’s no holiday restrictions thank God because I have two small kids.
OA, SORNA is a house of cards, built on sand. Eventually it will be crushed by its own additions. Florida now has two rulings to support a dropping of the branded DL’s. Just because it’s in our pocket doesn’t mean it’s not compelled speech when we have to show it at the Doctors, Banks, Bars, Clubs, Etc. The only people that need to “know” would be Law Enforcement and they can see that when they run the tags. Do bank robbers have a branded DL nope. I would argue that a bank should know if they were convicted bank robber, right?
Tearfuleagle, which are the two rulings you are referring to, when you write, “Florida now has two rulings to support a dropping of the branded DL’s”?
Oh yes So, I was referring to this one in the 8th circuit as persuasive and then did not the 11th circuit rule for the PFR in the Butts county case in GA. I understand that both of these are Posted Signs, however I think a strong comparison could be made to the Markings on the Driver License. It is in a since a sign to whoever sees it that we are either a SO or SP both should be compelled speech.