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!

“Smart legislators” is an oxymoron.

Another state has an internet ban in violation of Packingham?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Packingham applies to ALL registrants

Correct

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.