Justice Sotomayor addresses the constitutionality of residency restrictions

(Weekly Update #193)

Dear Members and Advocates,

Last week something pretty amazing happened. Justice Sotomayor made a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in a case concerning sex offender residency restrictions. The case itself was not picked up by the Court (very few are), but Justice Sotomayor was so compelled to share her thoughts and opinions on the issue, that she made a statement.

Opinions on cases the Supreme Court decides not to hear are somewhat rare. Generally, all you get is a list of cases that were denied with no indication as to whether any of the Justices felt a certain way about them. Sometimes, if a Justice feels strongly that a case should be taken up, but is overruled by the majority, you might get a statement. In this case, however, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that “Ortiz’s petition does not satisfy this Court’s criteria for granting certiorari”, yet she still wrote a long statement. When this happens, you have to wonder what the subtext is.

Then, in six magnificent pages she gave us so much valuable insight into what that subtext is. To start with, when it comes to densely populated New York City, the State’s residency restriction just might be unconstitutional. To continue, she acknowledges the research which universally finds that residency restrictions don’t work (and might even be counterproductive). To go further (and this will only excite the legal-eagles, but I promise you it’s big), she writes that “the State’s denial of Ortiz’s liberty interest in his release demands heightened scrutiny.” And finally, she predicts that it’s “only a matter of time until this Court will come to address the question presented in this case.”

Naturally it would have been wonderful for the Court to take up the case and knock out residency restrictions, but apparently this case was not the right one. Still, this statement is very useful. Even though such opinions are non-binding, they are hardly non-significant. First, Justice Sotomayor gave a signal to the lower courts that they should take a closer look at the constitutionality of residency restrictions rather than just blanketly finding they are constitutional because other cases found them to be. Second, she gave a roadmap for plaintiffs in future cases, that residency restrictions might not be unconstitutional in all cases throughout a state, but “as applied” to certain geographic areas they might be, so cases need to be more specifically tailored to the location. Third, for everyone who thought the Court was blind to the science in any “sex offender cases” (think Smith v. Doe), that’s not the case (rather, no longer the case). And finally, Justice Sotomayor effectively issued an invitation to bring such a challenge to the Court.

All state’s affiliates should accept this invitation and be joining together to identify the right vehicle to bring to the Supreme Court. Here in Florida, perhaps we should not consider the Miami-Dade case a signal that another residency restriction challenge would be a loser. Broward, for example, has 1 million fewer people but a higher population density and less available housing. Maybe “as applied” to Broward, or even “as applied” to the City of Ft. Lauderdale, their ordinances might be unconstitutional.

This Thursday March 3 at 8pm ET, the guest speaker on the monthly membership call will be a Public Defender.  She will be discussing cases in which she has had to defend a Registered Citizen who failed to comply with one of the many restrictions and requirements of the today’s Florida Registry, and the challenges she, too, faces in providing that defense.

As a final thought on Justice Sotomayor’s statement, one of the most significant take-aways was hope. Her statement reminds readers that “the Constitution protects all people” and that when “the political branches fall short in protecting these guarantees, the courts must step in”.

Our day will come!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

NOTE:  A national conference is planned for March 2023 that includes a vigil on the steps of the United States Supreme Court.  Watch for details!

ANNOUNCEMENTS

New Calendar of Events – Keep up with Meet-and-Greets in your area, Support groups, Membership Calls, and other events.  Click Here for Calendar, and double click on the event to view details and RSVP instructions. For questions, contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org or call 833-273-7325,Option 1.

• Monthly Membership Call Thursday March 3 at 8pm.  Topic: Registration Requirements    Guest speaker is a Public Defender.  Dial 319-527-3487
• Join the County Coordinator Team.  Only requirement is your desire to HELP us organize your county.  Training for new Coordinators is available.   Choose best day/time for you: Sunday March 6 at 7:00pm OR Wed March 9 at 7:00pm OR Thursday March 10 at 1:00 pm.   Dial (760) 548-9898.
• Family Support Group (by Zoom) Sat Mar 12th from 11:00-1:00pmET

SOME HEADLINES FROM THE WEEK

Man Wrongfully Convicted Of Raping ‘The Lovely Bones’ Author Is Suing New York For $50 Million

Anthony Broadwater spent 16 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit. While his name was finally cleared last November, Broadwater is now suing the state of New York for $50 million for unjust imprisonment and the decades he spent on the sex offender registry…

MS: “Sex offenders and people on death row would not be eligible”

Senate Bill 2448, which passed the Senate with little opposition and is now with the House Medicaid Committee, would allow “medically frail” inmates to be paroled to “special care facilities.” These would be specially licensed nursing homes where Medicaid could help…

Miya’s Law clears second Senate hurdle

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environment & General Government unanimously passed a bill (SB 898), known as “Miya’s Law,” aimed at improving tenant safety in apartment buildings by requiring background screenings for employees. The…

Sex-Offender Laws Sent a Man to Prison Over a Prayer Livestream

Jason wasn’t sure what to do. After an alleged sexting incident in 2012 snowballed into a felony conviction in his southern state, he was forced to register as a sex offender and barred from using a computer or smartphone. Over time, the conditions of his probation…