A “sex offender registration case” filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States. Before we tell you about the case, keep in mind that approximately 98% of these requests from the losing party in a lower court decision to have the supreme court review, are denied. In this case, it was the registrant who won and the the State of Maryland who is seeking this review.
From SCOTUSBlog: Maryland v. Rogers addresses whether sex offender registration is “punishment” within the meaning of the Sixth and 14th Amendments. Jimmie Rogers pleaded guilty to a Maryland criminal law that provides that a person may not knowingly “take or cause another to be taken to any place for prostitution.” Because the victim’s age was not an element of the offense, the prosecution did not present evidence of her age. However, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services determined that the victim was a minor. After Rogers’ release from prison, the department classified him as a Tier II sex offender, which requires registration for 25 years for human-trafficking offenses against minors. In contrast, a Tier I sex offender must register for only 15 years and may petition for removal after 10 years. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, determined that sex offender registration constitutes punishment for which the state must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Maryland attorney general’s petition asks the justices to review that decision, arguing that it conflicts with two Supreme Court decisions and other lower-court and state-court decisions.
Why wouldn’t this case go to the Circuit Court before going to SCOTUS?
I believe it is a jurisdictional issue. The state is appealing a decision made by its high court. States are sovereign entities in our rather unique system. I’m not well versed in these issues, but I suspect a federal circuit court has no jurisdiction over decisions made by a state’s supreme court–or whatever that state calls its high court.
Correct
Ed C and Bill,
Thanks for the input. I just assumed (yeah, I know the old saw about that word, lol) that the Circuit Court would come up next. Shows you’re never to old to learn something new… now if I can just manage to remember it!
This us a state case that ran through its channels, so the next stop is SCOTUS. Thats how it works.
What is FAC’S take on this? Is Maryland law similar to Florida law? Does this provide any ammo for the cases we have in the courts here?
As a layperson, I don’t understand how SCOTUS verdicts seem to apply to all in a particular class, i.e. Lawrence v Texas, except when it comes to “sex offenders.” The verdicts narrowly apply to just one person or a handful of people. Can any of you explain that? It just seems to me to be systemic hatred of persons on the registry.
It is not discriminatory. Court decisions may apply to a class or to individual litigants, based solely on the facts of the case and how it was filed. I’m no attorney and I do not understand the intricacies of it all, but I do know that the court CANNOT choose to apply rulings based upon who they like or dislike.
Packingham is proof that they do not discriminate. Although I believe the ruling only applied to NC residents, it set a precedent that applies to all US territories.
Packingham applies to ALL registrants
In effect, yes. The high court’s ruling was only against NC’s ban on social media for registrants but the ruling essentially means that anyone arrested in another state for violating a similar ban has Packingham as a precedent to file for dismissal. So in other words, although SCOTUS only ruled in a case that pertains to a NC law, fundamentally the decision applies to all registrants.
Another state has an internet ban in violation of Packingham?
Ahhh! Good news for Maryland registrants and, more to the point, potential good news for the rest of us – if it gets to (and through) SCOTUS with the right outcome!
Lately, we need all the potential good news we can get – especially with the Federal shenanigans looming.
So, if SCOTUS denies cert., then the RSO prevails and we have persuasive precedent that the registry is punishment? Am I correct on this?
I was just asking this, would we want it to be heard? If the ruling is good, wouldn’t we not want it to go any further as it could be a risk that would turn out bad?
Or would the hope be that if SCOTUS were to hear it and agree then it would apply across the board, which would be good.
Better that they don’t take it up, unless registrant counsel is well-versed in registry issues.
Since Rogers has prevailed twice including Maryland’s highest court, one can assume that the attorneys are well-versed in registry law. They may want to bring in help from an attorney that is familiar with arguing in front of SCOTUS, however, if they are not experienced in that arena.
Registrant counsel Michael Kimberly appears to have experience before SCOTUS. He does not appear to have experience dealing with the facts associated with registries. Wish he would reach out to Does attorneys for technical assistance.
Not exactly. Precedent is only set if there is an actual opinion. If they deny to hear the case, as they did in Snyder a couple years ago, then the lower court ruling stands. But that ruling would only affect cases in Maryland that have the same type of issues.
What it would do though is potentially open the door to further litigation that uses similar claims that the registry constitutes punishment. In my opinion, that is the holy grail of court rulings. If you can get the courts to rule that the registry is punishment, an argument can absolutely be made that it violates the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment based on the fact that 1) statistics do not support the commonplace belief that convicted sex offenders pose a significant risk to the public, which is the reason lawmakers say they implemented such measures and 2) the laws severely restrict the liberty of those who have already served a sentence for their crime and 3) no other class of felon is required to submit to these types of extra-judicial conditions under the threat of prison if non-compliant.
If the Supreme Court were to take up the case, the outcome will either be very good for our cause, or very bad. It is frightening to think that all future litigation could hinge on this one case. I haven’t read the lower court’s decision yet, but from the summaries I have read, I’m not so sure we want THIS case to be the one we hang our hats on.
If SCOTUS denies cert, then MD Ct of Appeals opinion would become binding precedent in Maryland and perhaps persuasive authority elsewhere.
And SCOTUS knows this all to well, if they make a decision that the registry is punishment which will be a win win for the sex offenders and the registry go’s kaput they know all to well the wrath that will come at them from all angles, Victim’s on the streets all over the country protesting the soft on sex offenders SCOTUS, They will never deem the sex offender registry punishment. They can not.
So SCOTUS can’t issue rulings that are unpopular?
In my opinion, this is the greatest thing the framers of the constitution did. They made SCOTUS justices lifetime appointees, which means that they are not beholden to the whims of voters and they can truly vote their conscience.
From my perspective, they know that they made a mistake in regards to the registry and the “common knowledge” belief that sex offenders pose a “frightening and high” risk of re-offense. It is a black eye on the court, much like the early rulings on the constitutionality of slavery. I think that the fact they denied cert in Snyder, as well as the PA case (Munoz, I believe), bears this out. Remember, it only takes four justices to grant cert, not a majority. Which means that in both cases where the lower court found in favor of the registrant and against the state, they could not muster enough support to try to overturn the verdicts. And you must remember that at the time, the court had four liberals, four conservatives, and one swing voter (Anthony Kennedy.) That says volumes, IMO.
Smart legislators out there should hope for a SCOTUS ruling that undoes the monstrosity of the registry for them. Very few of them have the political courage to fix this mess that they’ve made. A favorable SCOTUS ruling would absolve them of any potential political fallout at the ballot box and finally correct this massive injustice at the same time.
“Smart legislators” is an oxymoron.