Moments ago the SCOTUS posted their order. 11 cases were granted certiorary. Neither of the sex offender cases we are following were on the list.
A copy of the order can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092817zr_9o6b.pdf
NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST HAS CAUSED CONFUSION AND THEREFORE HAS BEEN REMOVED
so please remind me again which two sex offender cases are we watching again?. and if they weren’t granted were they denied? again which two were they again thank you.
I just heard about this Snyder vs doe case and was wondering how this may effect Florida’s registration laws. I was convicted of CSC1 & 2 in February of 1992 and did 13 1/2 years. I was told I only had to register for 25 years from the commission of my crime. I was told by some people in Florida that if I’m removed from Michigan’s list I wouldn’t have to anywhere else, but then others have told me it doesn’t make any difference I would still have to register in Florida. I would be willing to accept any help in this matter because I’m homeless because of these law and need to have some clarification on what I can do.
Hi everybody. Im not a know it all so please understand Im only trying to be helpful. It is still a 50% chance the SCOTUS will grant cert. to Snyder v. Does, as well as the MN civil commitment case. In fact, if I were betting Id say it is likely, esp. for the MN case. Recent changes at the SCOTUS make it necessary for petitions to get RELISTED for a second conference. Since 2013 about 90% of all grants have been relisted at least once. Only a very tiny 3% or so of all cert. grants are made without relisting, such as what we observed following the long conference and the 11 cases granted cert. Those 11 are the freaks of SCOTUS. Next week the Court will publish the cases that are relisted for next conference, and there will be alot of them because this is how the Court works now.
We welcome all the guidance and input. Believe me… I hope the MN case gets picked up! That at least can be reversed and not left intact. If Snyder remains intact it’s still a “good” precedent.
If there’s a chance of it being picked up, even a remote chance, we’ll keep our fingers crossed for it.
I have another question, my conviction was in 1992 in Michigan ,and Michigan did not have a registry back then, nor was I told by the judge I had to register. I was released on12-15-1994, and off parole in 1996 . I was placed on the registry in 1995 to 25 years, and then the power’s that be, changed it to life. Then a few years ago they even changed our registration dates to our conviction dates, so according to that I already have my 25 years in, but since the registry did not exist in 1992 ,nor was I told by a judge I had to register shouldn’t I be one of the people removed from the registry all together, since that would be a violation of due process or something.
Although this is disappointing there is one thing at the heart of this case that I am clinging on to – at the heart of this case was the finding that the registry IS cruel and unusual punishment. As FAC explained sometimes when SCOTUS does not hear a case it is because they already agree with the findings. Cruel and unusual punishment is part of the US Constitution. And although this case is an ex post facto case the “meat” of the whole decision are those 3 words. One punishment cannot be cruel and unusual for one if not for all. That is what I am clinging to in this.
And yes SCOTUS has indeed overturned several of their own decisions – a big one was Brown vs. The Board of Education (the case that led to the dismantling of racial segregation) that case overturned a case called Plessy vs. Ferguson (that upheld separate but equal) – it took 50 years but it did happen.
Ill go to circuit with My Name not Doe.
hello,
I would like to know how you know Snyder was denied today?
I am from Michigan and I asked The ACLU attorney Ms Aukerman and she said we don’t know what SCOTUS has decided as of yet.
Also I e-mail Ms Amy Howe, from scotusblog and this was her reply back tome not long ago.
They did not act on Snyder today. They could act on it on Monday, when they issue a lot of additional orders from the September 25 conference. (There is a chance that they will not and instead hold it over for reconsideration at the next conference, but a relatively small one.)
So again how do you know Snyder was denied, when no one else knows the answer to does v Snyder yet. Just curios how you know it was denied. Thank you for your time.
If you read our previous comment. I wrote that I want to be very clear and careful in explaining that it wasn’t denied. There was no denial issued.
We wrote that it was not on the order of accepted cases that were accepted.
As you indicated, there is a “relatively small” chance it will be held over for reconsideration on the next conference.
Think of it as getting into college… there are thousands of applicants and few get accepted. They post the list of “accepted” students on a specific day. Snyder was not on that list. Like a student who didn’t get accepted – there’s a small chance that student may make a “wait list” or was inadvertently omitted from the accepted list.
Until an order comes back saying certiorary was denied, nobody is saying it was denied. It was just not one of the 11 cases accepted.
Bobby,
Thanks for that info. The term “denied” was rescinded in a stupid question I asked, so you are correct; FAC has not said cert. denied. I got all excited there for a minute.
Respectfully
DW
I have a question, I was convicted in 1996, I was told the law then was 10-15 years and if no problems I could apply to be taken off the registry, then they changed it to 20, then lifetime, would this help me in any way?
Also, can they keep amending laws that contradict with my “plea”. I mean, I pled to ” you offer this for me to do that”. and then they keep adding stuff, I on the other hand, cant amend my plea, but seems that can add or change it at will. sorry, but I am just having a hard time with all the legal stuff.
This is the idea of an “Ex Post Facto” challenge. Government cannot retroactively apply a harsher punishment to a crime committed on an earlier offense date.
Problem is; this only applies to “punishment” and the Supreme Court in 2003 said the registry was not punishment.
Last year the 6th Circuit ruled it was. Similar cases are pending in other Circuits.
Does this mean that the previous decisions by lower courts will stand?
Yes
And , if you dont mind, what does that mean for us (if anything)? Thought i understood the law but lately seems its elastic to the favor of folly…
Best question I’ve heard all year. American system is summed up astutely in the novel “In Praise of Folly”
Will states in the 6th district be free to revert back to Megan’s Law requirements for those who gain relief from the Snyder v. Doe case?
Is there a law that prevents any legislative body from adjusting their laws with new registration requirements that do not include the problems found by the 6th District?
In other words, How will states in the 6th district attempt to keep their registries alive and well? Can they?
So does this mean that registrants from states outside the 6th district whose crimes were committed prior to 1994 can move to those states governed by the 6th district and avoid the registry?
This has nothing to do with “avoiding the registry” and please lets not get confused. People in the 6th circuit who were convicted when there was a registry will still be on the registry.
Elements of the registry cannot be applied retroactively. That means; if one’s case is from 2010 and in 2011 the state requires registrants die their hair blue, it can’t apply to people whose cases pre-date 2011.
Thanks for that explanation. My question involves those whose crimes were committed before any registry existed at all?
The next question is whether changes to the DURATION and nature of registration can be applied retroactively. We have had on District Court in Ohio, which is part of the 6th, say no., right? As best as I can tell, Ohio continued to apply “state of conviction” classification converted to post AWA tiers for out of staters. So for Florida registrants, that would be lifetime registration for all.
Thanks for that explanation JoeM. Not the best news in the world, but much appreciate your taking the time to respond to the question.
Seems like the only State in the union that has gotten it right is (ironically enough) Alaska.
How a federal court can say the words “ex-post facto punishment” and any state’s registry then survive such a ruling for anyone caught up in registration requirements post-conviction date is beyond my ability to understand?
Lol of course not do you think they will repeal a law that they totally made a mistake on and believed false information? the highest court in the world will not admit they made a mistake, Ever.
They have overturn themselves before. SCOTUS in general. Where they ruled previously on a case and years later another case presented itself. There is a list of example cases showing the first case and then the second case while showing the timeline as well between both cases. Google it, I’m sure you’ll find it.
I’m watching the McGuire case as some others on here have mentioned, because it has similarities to Snyder and it pertains to us here coming from the 11th circuit and its precedence has been amplified by the opinions of the solicitor general and the denial of cert by SCOTUS as well.
Another potential case I’m watching is the one from Colorado. In that one, the Federal judge Richard Matshe ruled the registry in its entirety to punitive and unconstitutional for 3 defendants as applicable to them. It is being currently appealed to the 10th circuit and it may have potential to be considered by SCOTUS. That one I think may have potential to deal with Smith v. Doe. The 10th circuit is also Justice Gorsuch’s old court grounds and considering his dissent in U.S v. Nichols, he may want another crack at attacking government overreaching via Sorna through that Colorado registry case. Of course it may not happen, but the potential may be there.
Means they wont take it and leave it at the lower….. so now what ?
Can someone please explain this?
When a losing party (in this case Michigan) wants a higher court (in this case the US Supreme Court) to consider it’s appeal, it files a “writ of certiorary”, which is essentially an application for the SCOTUS to hear and make a decision.
Following briefing by both sides and any others who want to chime in (called Amicus Briefs), the Supreme Court Justices have a conference and then decide which cases they grant certiorary to (decide to hear).
On Monday, the justices had a conference to consider the cases before them and today they entered an order listing 11 cases they will hear in the upcoming session.
The two cases we were following (one of which we were closely following) was NOT on that list, meaning the Court did not pick it up.
Generally, when the SCOTUS does not grant certiorary, it means they agree that the lower court’s decision was correct in light of the law. In the case of Snyder, that’s a good thing, because the registrants won!
The bad thing is that if the SCOTUS does not render the final decision, it doesn’t become binding precedent for the entire US. So, in the case of Snyder, it’s binding in the 6th circuit.
What we now have to do is bring similar cases (to Snyder) in the other 10 appellate districts and hope for a similar outcome.
The Supreme Court of the United States receives over 5000 petitions of certiorari annually. Of those cases, they accept 100. It’s not a tragedy they did not grant cert. in Snyder. It simply means that at least 4 justices felt there was no issue in the 6th Circuit decision that required their review.
Will this denial of cert. be beneficial to the FAC’s Ex Post Facto suit?
Point of clarification – they have not issued their order denying cert yet – they just didn’t have it on their order of cases GRANTING cert. That might be semantics, but I want to be cautious about using the term “denied” YET.
As far as the question; leaving the 6th Circuit INTACT is good for a Florida (will be “Does” not FAC, FAC is not a sex offender) Ex-Post-Facto case.
Just showing my ignorance again. Sorry if FAC was in any way insulted. Certainly not meant that way.
No… I was just clarifying… Words are important so I don’t want to put out anything that may cause confusion.
so… what does this mean??
What does this mean? Or what are the possibilities that can now happen?
Look to the McGuire case in the 11th Circuit. It controls Florida and I am very sure that this win for the 6th Circuit will have a positive place in the McGuire decision.
Agreed. If SCOTUS denied to hear the Snyder case it’s because the 6th circuit got it right. The McGuire case which has parallels to Snyder, indeed can help us here, and the 11th circuit already cited Snyder in Doe v Miami Dade. What the Snyder case has now that it didn’t have before is the backing of SCOTUS and the SG as well. It makes Snyder even more persuasive I would think.
Has anyone heard anything about when the 11th circuit plans to hear McGuire case? Is there a link to that particular brief?
Follow this PDF link to McGuire v. Strange, it’s the Alabama case in the 11th. http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf
Thanks very much GW!