Of course they are. They could create case law that favors us. But, of course, they could create case law that favors them.

Simply put a person has a constitutional right to their reputation.
There is no high reconviction rate for people on the registry so the assumption of dangerousness cannot be made.
Finally attempt to use pseudoscience to prove a person’s dangerousness does not meet the Daubert standard.

Prediction of dangerousness, length of treatment, and psychological damage. http://sosen.org/blog/2019/03/15/prediction-of-dangerousness-length-of-treatment-and-psychological-damage-3.html

Detroit
An attorney I spoke with said you have a way better chance of getting off the registry as an individual than you do as a group. The reason why is, as one person, you are just asking to get removed from it. As a group you are asking for the entire registry to be stopped.
Obviously easier to sway a judge on one person coming off on their merits than closing down a money making operation. The problem is, a HUGE percentage of us on the registry can barely afford our daily expenses, so most of us cannot pay for a big attorney bill.

UTAH Const. Art. I, Section I, “All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”

Utah lost such a case in 2008 because the used to list the “Primary” and “Secondary” victims on an offenders online profile. In State v. Briggs (2008), Mr. Briggs challenged this as a violation of his due process rights because they were depriving him of his inherent LIBERTY interest to reputation without establishing his current dangerousness without a hearing. The Utah Supreme Court agreed, and said the State could only do so after a due process hearing.

Utah took down the information and in the 12 years since has never conducted such hearings. They also put disclaimers on their website that they make no claim of current dangerousness or what type of crimes an offender may commit in the future.

See, also Commonwealth v Gruver (PA 2020), where PA stated it was a PROPERTY interest.

Under federal law there is no such protection. See, Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (holding mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty or property interest)

Does attorneys, in Does v Swearingen (our ex post facto plus challenge), challenge the assumptions underlying the registry.

Oh one other thing the Hawaii v Bani Case was about community notification and being placed on that community notification. It basically made it so that the state had to prove In court that a person was dangerous before they could place them on community notification.

The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) amazing after four years someone finally decided to challenge the constitutional issue of damage to the reputation

Perhaps it would be worthwhile for some of the advocacy organizations to read the article and put together a challenge based on the low recidivism and the damage that is done to a person’s protected liberty interest by damaging their reputation and standing in the community.

In other words, You only have a chance of doing something about it, for them falsely putting you on the registry if you can get a judge to agree with you ,but if a judge were to agree with you he or she would loose their job. Great system!