PA: HUGE WIN!!! – SORNA Declared Unconstitutional
YES, you read that correctly. A Pennsylvania Trial Court has declared SORNA Unconstitutional.
The court wrote, “we find that SORNA is unconstitutional as a legislative scheme in both its use of a constitutionally infirm irrebuttable presumption and the punitive effects of its registration and notification provisions, as well as in its application to this Defendant, who has a strong support structure, is educated, is working, is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation, and is highly unlikely to reoffend”
The Court also found that “based on the evidence of scientific and academic consensus presented, we find that SORN laws do not have the effect on recidivism and public safety anticipated by the Legislature, and that they are not rationally related to the purposes for which they were enacted.”Ā This is one of the first cases (to our knowledge) where the scientific and academic studies have been considered and used in formulating the court’s decision.
PA Torsilieri SORNA Opinion 2022
A copy of the Order follows, and before you ask, NO, this is not binding on Florida.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great news. Finally someone is going after the jugular vein of this unconstitutional beast. Good to know there is a little sanitary in an insane world. Though Iām sure it will be contested, so we will have to wait to see what happens from here. They determined itās unconstitutional, itās punishment, itās not safety oriented, itās discriminatory. What else do you need to know about it?
I am not sure the state has recourse. This case was remanded back to the original court by the PA Supreme Court. I would imagine if they appealed to the USA SCOTUS It would not be heard just as Muniz.
Cases are often reappealed after a remand to a lower court. It’s not final until the state Supreme Court either denies any further appeals, or decides to take up the case itself. Suppose that Pennsylvania remands a similar case to a different trial court, and that judge ruled exactly the opposite. What then? It takes the state Supreme Court to set the law of the land. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court should simply have taken up this case itself and set firm guidelines that ALL of its trial courts MUST follow.
The walls of Jericho came tumbling down not because the children of Israel marched around the walls but that they kept marching! PA is called the Keystone State. Perhaps this is the one that will start all of the walls crumbling!
YAY!!!! Something to be glad for and to use as a source for hope!!!!
Perhaps we are witnessing the biggest indicator the tide is turning?
OMG, it’s in response to the direction of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court!
This ruling would be binding on all of Pennsylvania, right?!! š²šš»šš¤
(Apologies for my overwhelming enthusiasm, but Pennsylvania is my home state!!)
Its not a class action case. Its only binding on the plaintiff, but obviously will stand as case laws for others in that State.
Its a good start.
@disgusted in Michigan, so this one isn’t a class action, like ours is here Michigan. Hopefully, Ms Aukerman sees this ruling and can add it or at least bring it up as are 4th lawsuit moves through the court. I just hope he makes a judgement soon and grants an injunction for now, until the case is decided.
The order declares SORNA “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to this Defendant”. Wouldn’t that mean it applies to everyone in that state?
No, it doesn’t apply to everyone in that state, only the named litigant. In order for this opinion to apply to everyone there, a class action would need to be filed with the same opinion being handed down.
That’s why we have a class action here in Michigan. Our third lawsuit was a class action because the positive ruling in our second one only applied to the plaintiffs (6 I think) who brought the lawsuit.
I can say with absolute certainty that it will only be a matter of a few weeks before a class action is filed in Pennsylvania based on this decision.
Watch for it.
Has our nation gone so WOKE that the Constitution applies to some citizens and not all citizens? This must have our Founding Fathers turning over in their graves.
Iām old enough to remember when āwokeā referred to āawareness of racial disparities.ā
And itās true that racial disparities exist in the registry. But the above is a use of the term āwokeā with which I am unfamiliar. And the new acronym, āWOKE,ā in all caps, is now state law, but no one I know even knows what those letters stand for. I guess weāll just start using it as a general putdown.
“When a court holds that a law is facially unconstitutional, it is holding that the law cannot be enforced at all, and not merely as applied to the situation of a particular plaintiff.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/954/facial-challenges
Disgusted in Michigan, I disagree that the Torsilieri case would not apply to everyone in Pennsylvania if the PA Supreme Court rules in favor of Torsilieri. The trial court clearly stated that SORNA is “Facially Unconstitutional” and as applied to the defendant. “Facially” is important to note because “facially Unconstitutional” means that there is no set of circumstances by which it could be constitutional, in which would apply to all Pennsylvania residents “and” the defendant. When SORNA 1 was declared Unconstitutional for violating the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and state Constitutions in 2017, our legislation enacted Subchapter I, known as Act 10 and 29 to apply to pre-SORNA registered offenders. However, even in that new law, it has the same language as all the previous laws that deem individuals as high risk and also states that Subchapter I was enacted in response to the Muniz decision, meaning that it was binding on all PA citizens who,s offenses occurred prior to December 20, 2012. However, Subchapter I here in PA follows the provisions of their prior Megan’s Law 3 statutes, in which still cannot meet constitutional standards of due process. When SORNA 1 was enacted, it included the Sunset provisions setting forth the expiration of the prior version of Megan’s Law 3. See: 42 PA. C.S.A. Section 9799.41. A year later after the expiration date our PA Supreme rule that Megan’s Law 3 was Unconstitutional in its entirely because it violated the single subject rule of the PA Constitution and was omnibus legislation. See: Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603, 615 (PA. 2013). The crucial point to understand is that when SORNA 1 was ruled Unconstitutional for pre-sorna offenders, every pre-sorna offender should of been removed from the registry and not a new law enacted to pre-offender, especially with or identical languages of the prior SORNA 1. When the legislature reveals a criminal statute or otherwise removes the state’s condemnation from conduct that was formerly deemed criminal, this action requires the dismissal of a pending criminal proceeding charging such conduct. See: In re Dandridge, 462 PA. 67, 337 A.2d 885 (1975).
Yes, absolutely, the hope is that Pennsylvania’s Superior Court ALSO issued a decision that it’s unconstitutional. The advantage of class action status would have simply forced the state to remedy the situation automatically, without requirement that each individual has to petition the courts for relief. But I have already read that cases raised in Pennsylvania seeking to cite this trial court ruling have been unsuccessful. It takes a Superior Court ruling to create binding precedent. They determine the constitutionality of laws in their state.
How could the legal system get so screwed up? What’s unconstitutional in the nation is constitutional in a state? This makes no sense whatsoever in a nation called ‘United States’. It is difficult to identify anything united.
Bob, courts rule differently. I think that the only reason that the state of Georgia didnāt go to the 11th circuit when their draconian new statutes were pimp slapped circa 2010 is that because they got beat up even worse by their own state Supreme Court I honestly donāt think the current 11th circuit with the rules in the same manner which was to say that most of those subsequent restrictions they were passed between say 2003 in 2009 were subject to ex post facto. As a result of that decision, the Georgia state legislature of the time totally rewrote their statutes so that the most draconian restrictions only applied to people convicted after they were originally passed and they put in removal, provisions, that the courts actually do rather than just giving lip service to. They also eliminated the requirement that you turn over your Internet information as best as I can tell. I think thatās what weāre seeing in Pennsylvania. It may not actually be ironic that these states are more likely to listen to their own courses. They are to the federal courts service we have seen in Michigan and Ohio. But we also seen Ohio attempt to make some creative interpretations of the courts decision as it applies to out of state registrants, even after they got slapped by there on the Supreme Court a couple of times. I tell my family that itās ironic that for someone like me who was convicted along time ago, the crazy red state of Georgia may be one of the easiest places for me to live then I can actually afford it. I canāt afford to go to the unattractive parts of Vermont anymore and I have no idea what the actual situation is in places like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, even if I could afford to live there. Pennsylvania is sounding slightly will have to see how it actually falls out.
Class action sounds like something I would join in on for sure!
Can you elaborate please? How is it at the direction of the PA Supreme Court? Thanks.
Its a Pennsylvania State court decision that appears to have already been through their Supreme Court, because the judge frequently makes statements that he must do something as directed by their S.C., or that he is bound by a ruling from their S.C.
Its all in the opinion and very simple to comprehend. If you haven’t read it, click here: PA Torsilieri SORNA Opinion 2022
That is the way I see it too, Disgusted in Michigan, the Supreme Court provided a bright pathway for the lower Court to follow and the Court cites those pathways in their decision.
This is great news! Although it isn’t binding for the state of Florida, it is certainly persuasive authority and a great light shedding start.