Prop 35 Court Date [updated with audio]

Prop. 35 case has a court date on September 10 at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The topic is whether the current preliminary injunction was properly granted.  More information / documents

Sept 9: Court to Hear Arguments on Right to Anonymous Speech in Prop. 35 Case 

September 9 / EFF: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Doe v. Harris, EFF’s challenge to California’s Proposition 35, which requires registered sex offenders to turn over all of their Internet identifiers and service providers to local law enforcement authorities.

In November 2012, California passed Prop. 35 through ballot initiative. The day after the election, we brought a lawsuit with the ACLU of Northern California, challenging parts of the initiative as violating the First Amendment. The court granted a temporary restraining order later that day and, in January 2013, granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law after finding we’d shown a substantial likelihood that the challenged portions of Prop. 35 were unconstitutional. Full Article

Listen to the oral argument (Sept 10)

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This was on ballot presented to voters as further punishment, so even on its face its unlawful ….they
cannot put free Americans back into restraint parole
conditions its unlawful ….they cannot force you to give
communication info unless every citizen in the state does
so as well and/or a warrant to search for cause of a crime
or its unlawful … cannot make free speech a crime or
obstruct free speech or restrain free speech when communication info was not given…its unlawful …its un-Constitutional.

OK, it’s February. It’s been 145 days since the oral arguments were given. Every case heard in September and before, most in October, and even some in November have already been decided. Why is the court taking so long with our case??

I really really hate this. I really do. I have a bad feeling that, even though the judges were very skeptical against the state during the arguments, that they are taking their cues from other states and jurisdictions, and coming up with wordsmithing options so they can cede registrants’ Constitutional rights to that of the sex offender mania fallout.

I will have to say this: If they decide against us, that would be the biggest disconnect between judicial comments and activity during the oral arguments, and the actual decision, possibly in court history.

Is there ANY possible way we can get a timetable on the decision? ANY way???

I just got word that one of the judges is having issues with their family. That is apparently what’s causing the delay.

Keep in mind that it took the 10th Circuit almost 10 months to decide Doe v. Shurtleff, and their ruling flied in the face of SCOTUS precedent – using an exception to strict scrutiny in 1st Amendment jurisprudence that SCOTUS warned should not be used outside of zoning law cases, as it could eviscerate the 1st Amendment.