TN: Judge orders state to remove men from sex offender registry
A federal judge ruled Monday that Tennessee’s sex offender registration act is unconstitutional, at least as it was applied retroactively to two offenders.
The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee affects only the two men who sued, identified in court documents as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2.
“I think the ruling, while it is narrowly tailored to our clients, does open the door to the possibility of a class action,” attorney Ed Yarbrough said in an interview.
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson had already ruled in February that parts of the law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents people from being punished by a law passed after their crime was committed. On Monday, he ordered the state to stop enforcing any part of the law against the two plaintiffs and to remove their names from the sex offender registry.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good! The judge used the term “punishment” regarding ex post facto application of the registry. I suspect the state is already preparing an appeal to the 6th Circuit. Any decision there would only be precedential only in that circuit. However, for everyone else, the circuit decision would be persuasive in other circuits.
Each determination that the registry is punishment adds weight to constitutional arguments of ex post facto and bills of attainder. Eventually the scales may tip away from the 2003 Alaska Smith v Doe decision. Hope springs eternal.
Veritas.
6th Circuit already has ruled registry to be ex post facto punishment. This case cited them.
Thanks Jacob. I just browsed the Does v Snyder decision. It seems that nation-wide precisely what restrictions constitute punishment is ill-defined. Just how tight do the the thumb screws need to be in order to be considered punishment? The answer to that question is–quite literally–all over the map.
So in the 6th Circuit, at least some provisions of Michigan’s SORA constitute punishment in effect and thus can violate ex post facto. A question I would like to ask is, if that is true does it also constitute a bill of attainder? Those two are mentioned in the same paragraph of the constitution. I’ve read that bills of attainder are also prohibited in all 50 state constitutions.
In my little pea brain, if a court were to declare a registration implementation as punishment then the argument could be made that punishment is being applied without a trial. In order to give citizens adequate notification, criminal statutes must clearly specify both the elements of a crime and the punishment for a violation. I have yet to see a statute that specifies registration, and certainly not specific provisions, as a component of statutory punishment.
A successful bill of attainder attack would be more sweeping than ex post facto decisions. If registration is considered punishment and a bill of attainder, then not just those whose crime was committed prior to legislation would be affected. If considered a bill of attainder a registration implementation itself might be invalidated.
This is just a thought on my part. Any legal scholars out there?
Veritas.
I find rulings like these so frustrating and misguided because of the nit-picking involved as it applies to individuals. It’s a slap in the face and a form of favoritism. So I disagree that piece meal “wins” such as these help the collective. Why? Baby steps (the long game) is gonna take decades to gain any traction in actually dismantling the registry.
The registry will never be “narrow in scope” or robust. It either works or it doesn’t. Clearly it doesn’t, but they actively and rigorously defend this train wreck.. There’s no pride, passion or purpose in promoting, upholding and defending a boondoggle.
That’s why I continue to say we’re all being held hostage in the court of public opinion. There is no reasoning with people who believe in magical thinking.
This is the way the justice system works. The United States Constitution only gives federal courts authority to act within the confines of the specific cases or controversies before them. Unless the lawsuit is a class action suit, or the court completely strikes down a law as facially unconstitutional (vs. an “as applied” challenge), which is very rare, courts do not have the legal jurisdiction to affect individuals who are not parties to the case.
I think lots and lots of people know the Hit Lists don’t work, but they don’t care. They are happy just to be hurting people and to have an outlet for their hate and vengeance. That is what they want. America is obviously an immoral country. We’ve seen plenty just in the last couple of years that prove it.
Yup. I think the registry is a lot like the old town square pillories, where a perp’s head and hands were secured within holes in a standing wooden plank. The townspeople could mock and throw things at the perp and could feel they were better than him, even if they were destitute themselves. Of course, it may have reduced crime somewhat as well. But politically, it was just a way to express hatred and to allow people to personify evil in their own minds.
Here’s to the day when we at last can benefit from similar rulings.
AWESOME! Now if only we can win our Ex-Post Plus challenge.
Can the state sue to over turn decision in the supreme court?
It would go back to the Snyder court for the first appeal ironically. I IRC, the Supreme Court has already refused to hear Snyder.
The state can appeal, but it first goes to the 6th Circuit. Since this present case was in large measure won based on 6th Circuit precedent, the state may have a difficult argument. If the state did lose there, it could ask for a rehearing by the full court, i.e. en banc. The final step would be a petition to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.
Ed C
I just saw an article on Friday that said the supreme court has refused to hear more cases than ever over the past 6 months. I am talking big cases not related to registry.
They are staying mum on abortion, elections, and many other high profile subjects. So that could be a good or bad thing for us. Good if we win and the state cannot get a higher hearing or bad if they win and we cannot be heard.
As I have said all along though, it is much ,more likely one or two individuals get a win than the entire registry being tossed. That is why so many are getting arrested for spitting on the sidewalk etc. Law enforcement knows many of us are approaching that 20 year mark where we can petition to be relieved of obligations. And they are running scared
Can we not get a very large group together and file suit under the same basis??
Good Question R.H.
I am so weary of hearing about wins howbeit small or so called great!
I’m in. I don’t care too much about cost