<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: SCOTUS Agrees to hear Sex Offense Case on Applying SORNA Retroactively	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://floridaactioncommittee.org/scotus-agrees-to-hear-sex-offense-case-on-applying-sorna-retroactively/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/scotus-agrees-to-hear-sex-offense-case-on-applying-sorna-retroactively/</link>
	<description>Reforming Florida’s Sex Offender Registry Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:21:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Customwrittenessays		</title>
		<link>https://floridaactioncommittee.org/scotus-agrees-to-hear-sex-offense-case-on-applying-sorna-retroactively/comment-page-1/#comment-11903</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Customwrittenessays]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=7972#comment-11903</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The SCOTUS upheld the 6th Circuits decision that Michigan&quot;s application of SORNA was unconstitutional by refusing to review the decision. SORNA itself imposes no restrictions on registrants other than the requirement to register. The standard was whether or not the state punitively exceed the requirements of SORNA, which it did. There was no decision to review. All states are essentially now &quot;on notice to review their laws. If a similar case comes up through another circuit then there is cause for the SCOTUS to become involved. The court for better or for worse I think tries not to legislate from the bench whenever possible.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The SCOTUS upheld the 6th Circuits decision that Michigan&#8221;s application of SORNA was unconstitutional by refusing to review the decision. SORNA itself imposes no restrictions on registrants other than the requirement to register. The standard was whether or not the state punitively exceed the requirements of SORNA, which it did. There was no decision to review. All states are essentially now &#8220;on notice to review their laws. If a similar case comes up through another circuit then there is cause for the SCOTUS to become involved. The court for better or for worse I think tries not to legislate from the bench whenever possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
