Win in CA: Judge’s ruling protects due process rights of Californians caught in federal registration trap

On April 9, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the Department of Justice from prosecuting California residents under a federal sex-offender registration law without first confirming with the state that those individuals are required to register in the first place.

PLF represents a group of plaintiffs who are caught in a bind created by conflicting federal and state law. Each had been convicted of a sex offense, served their punishment, been rehabilitated, and earned removal from California’s registry through expungement or formal court petition.

But in 2021, the DOJ adopted a rule under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) that required PLF’s clients to re-register with the state— even though California, having recognized their rehabilitation, prohibits the state from accepting registration from those who merited removal from its registry. Nonetheless, because of SORNA’s requirements, PLF’s clients faced the threat of federal felony charges and up to ten years in prison. Although they can’t register with the state, the federal government claimed authority to prosecute them anyway.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal found that arrangement unconstitutional because the law required the plaintiffs to raise an affirmative defense — essentially proving their own innocence…

READ MORE

California – Doe-v-DOJ-Order


Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Win in CA: Judge’s ruling protects due process rights of Californians caught in federal registration trap

  • April 14, 2026

    Never considered moving to California to get off the list.

    Reply
  • April 11, 2026

    The feds are relentless. Ask me how I know.

    Reply
  • April 11, 2026

    This vaguely touches my situation where I was supposed to go back before a judge to be removed from registration, but they moved the timeline from 20 years to 25 years retroactively. Why do I think it is relatable or connected to California’s situation? Well, it is ALL about funding, control and making them look like tough on crime.

    Reply
  • April 11, 2026

    We need more of this, so that the idiots who are on the bench in scotus, gets the message about the registry has changed. Their initial view of the registry back than, to how it is now, is way different. I hope it forces scotus, to get off their high horses, and finally get some results. This is provided, that our country doesn’t fall apart before hand, which is slowly happening.

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *