Louisiana Attorney General seeks SCOTUS review of driver’s license branding.
The Louisiana Attorney General is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the decision of its state supreme court which struck down the Louisiana Law requiring the branding of driver’s licenses of persons required to register as sex offenders with the label on the face of their licenses.
In 2017, a registrant was charged with altering his drivers license to conceal the words “sex offender” he argued that the requirement violates the First Amendment prohibition against compelled speech and won. The state appealed and lost.
Now the AG is moving the case over to the feds and asking the highest court in the country to stay the decision so that Louisiana can submit a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the issue. While the Supreme Court of the US grants very, very few such petitions. If they do elect to hear this case, it could have implications across the country in other states (including Florida) that brand registrant’s licenses. It might also go as far as having an impact on passport branding under International Megan’s Law.
You can read the filing here: Louisiana Emergency Stay to SCOTUS DL
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for posting this article. This case could be important either way.
Seriously i hope this gets heard. how great would that be to not have my passport have that scarlet letter on it every time i leave this country. If LA won the drivers license case why has no one in FL tried? seems there is precedent set in LA to argue
It certainly violates the court order that states no community or public notification in my case. FDLE doesn’t care because they know that as long as it’s on your license and you are on the website, you will almost certainly not be able to obtain employment that would give you the means to fight them.
It would be a MIRACLE if:
SCOTUS would take up the case for review and
SCOTUS having taken the case, reversed the branding of documents such as DLs or Passports.
SCOTUS will NEVER review nor will it EVER reverse anything that benefits citizens. The organism is ment to do the will of the States NOT THE PEOPLE.
If I had a million dollars I would bet all of it, that SCOTUS will not even hear the case. And with the 2 million in my pocket I would easily obtain citizenship in another place.
The US is no longer “The land of the free”, where a person can be free from oppresive forms of tyranny.
Yall need to wake up.
I really hope SCOTUS does accept this case and perhaps it will lead them to begin reviewing all the other b******* that is dumped upon those of us forced to register. (Chief Justice Roberts, it ain’t just Smith v. Doe 2003 anymore!!).
** And, personally, I will be very pleased if it forces the removal of the IML unique identifier from my passport!
According to the Court assignments, this appeal would first be reviewed by Justice Samuel Alito. (I have no idea if that’s good or bad.)
Alito authored the court’s opinion in Packingham, including the parenthetical about restrictions and obligations on registrants whose sentences were served being a “troubling fact” not before the court at the time. Accordingly, I would prefer his initial review.
Kennedy wrote the opinion in Packingham. Alito wrote the concurrence.
If certi is granted it could side with Louisiana. Just as denial of certi in 2005 Doe V Miller ushered the rapid expansion of SORR throughout the Country. If SCOTUS was to deny certi, then Louisiana’s state supreme court decision would become precedent.
If SCOTUS was to act quickly before review in the Courts of Appeal that to me would be very concerning. Best outcome..Denial of Certi.
“Just another Jailhouse lawyer”
A denial of Certiorari sends a very powerful and loud message “We agree with the findings of the lower Court” In this instance Louisiana’s Supreme Court.
The reason Certiorari was denied in the Miller case, I believe, is because the “Right to Live where you want (you don’t) is not a Federal question. “The right (or freedom) to move at ones own inclination, to changes jobs and residences” is.
Semantics matter. These legal minds will split a rabbits hair. What does ‘IS” mean in contest of “does”?
If the writ is granted, we need to file MANY amicus briefs using empirical data.