Supreme Court turns away woman’s challenge to Virginia sex offender registry law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has declined to take up the case of a Virginia woman who claims the state’s sex offender registry law is unconstitutional.

The woman was reclassified as a violent sex offender 15 years after being convicted of unlawful sex with minor in a case that did not involve any violence. The reclassification subjects her to a ban on entering her children’s schools without first seeking permission from state courts and the local school board.

The woman was identified only as Jane Doe in court records. She says the process unfairly risks revealing her children’s identity and could take years to resolve.

Lower courts had rejected her case on procedural grounds, saying she failed to first exhaust state remedies. Article

Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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

Of course they turned it down. It would be a clear case of constitutional violation. Even if they had not turned it down they would have conspired with each other to assure that they ruled against her. The system has found the perfect bogyman with the “RSO” and they are not about to change a thing about it…much too valuable a tool for them to manipulate the people for political gain with.

Nothing is gonna change that.

Go not pass go – do not collect $200 – Game Over

In a way I am glad I was not tracking this case and avoided the disappointment.
I would day, wake me up when we get there, but instead I ask, what can I do to help us get there?

From the article:

“Lower courts had rejected her case on procedural grounds, saying she failed to first exhaust state remedies.”

What “state remedies” hasn’t she “exhausted?” Isn’t this why she filed suit in the FIRST place??

Just a passive victory for bills of attainder this time. Something to be said for the outlook of a person wearing this label: that there’s more hope to be found in not being able to have a chance to win than somehow suffering yet another mind-boggling precedental defeat! Thanks to all those who care enough about the Constitution to try to fight the good fight though.

These violations of the constitution and the bill of rights go on because the people that could make a difference are afraid of rocking the boat or are themselves up caught up in the myth/lie, the public says nothing because many of them are caught up in the myth and believe the lie. And then there are those in both camps that do and say nothing because they are afraid of going against the grain. This is the same thing that was going on in Nazi Europe in the 30s & 40s that allowed their social structure to sink to the depths that it did when it became socially acceptable to hate and assault, to violate the basic human rights of one group of people, to deny the truth and to let the evil in people come out.

Hate to say it, but exhausting state remedies/options is standard fare I think. No matter what the issue is this is normal and it doesn’t speak to what the court might have decided had she exhausted state remedies first.

For example, in California if you find an error in you criminal history record, you must first request an administrative hearing before appealing the the courts. That is a must.

Interesting to note that while legislatures and judges are in a hurry to brand and destroy the peasant class they themselves still remain aloft and above the law. People really should pay attention to elected officials. Roughly 33% currently have been charged or are in the process of charges that would require a peasant to register.. And yet not a 1 (including the perv Folly)has ever found their way on the registries….hmmmm..Time for a removal and a new government..

Does anyone know if Virginia has ever let anyone off the registry? After being on the registry for 15 years, and having a non violent offense and a clean record a person can petition to come off the registry. But you can’t get a hearing before a judge without the VSP turning over their records on you. It appears that there is no clock ticking and therefore the VSP just sits on the request( request appears to go into the VSP black hole). Please, someone tell me that this is not true.. Please tell me that the VSP is honest and true and executes their job fairly…I need hope. This registry is punitive to everyone in the family. If you think it is not, then you haven’t been subjected to the witch hunt, but not to worry at the rate the registry is growing you will experience it soon enough. I would not wish this on my worst enemy.


Here’s the RSOL state affiliate for Virginia, plus the website of another activist who’s been working on the Virginia registry for a long time, Mary Devoy. Perhaps they can help you.

Virginia – Safer Virginia

Address: P O Box 8251, Richmond, VA 23226-0251
Phone: 434.933.2255
Primary Contact: John K –
Secondary Contact: J.P. Welch –


Hope this helps you.

Dave in the Philippines