Motion Filed to Stop Implementation of International Megan’s Law [updated with Motion for Preliminary Injunction]

A Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on February 19 asking the U.S. District Court to stop implementation of International Megan’s Law (formerly HR 515 and now Public Law 114-119). If granted, the motion would temporarily prohibit the federal government from both adding a conspicuous, unique identifier to the passports of registrants and notifying foreign countries of registrants’ plans to travel internationally.

Six declarations were Included with the Motion, including declarations from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Dr. Tom Tobin of Sharper Future and criminal defense attorney Alex Landon. The declarations of by ATSA and Dr. Tobin included statements that International Megan’s Law will not halt child sex trafficking and could result in significant harm to hundreds of thousands of registrants.

“We are grateful for the support of ATSA in our efforts to stop implementation of International Megan’s Law,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. ATSA is an international organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse through research, evidence-based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment, and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are at risk to abuse.

A hearing date of March 30 was requested when the motion was filed. The federal government’s response to the motion is currently due on March 4, however, both dates could be postponed if the government requests a delay.


Motion for Preliminary Injunction

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. 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.
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

James said “Were there 2,300 arrests for overseas sex crimes in 2014”

I replied “No. There were 2300 arrests for domestic and overseas crimes. I would imagine none of those arrested were registrants since Angel Watch has been in place, according to the Government, over 5 years. 2014 is only 2 years ago.”

I should have said…”No. There were 2300 arrests for domestic and overseas crimes. I would imagine none of those arrested for overseas crimes were registrants since Angel Watch has been in place, according to the Government, over 5 years, 2014 is only 2 years ago.”

Imagining using the numbers from the ICE article/statement or the ‘4500 passports issued to registrants in 2008’ to justify IML would be a stretch in any rational examination of this issue.

I would like to thank anonymously for such a thorough and smart response…I wrote a lengthy reply but, somehow it got lost in the ether that often inter-spaces our existence…maybe for the best.

Still, I would like to…maybe be a little more active in this cause…bad numbers are bad, bad for everyone, bad for policymakers and us alike.

I did some research a long time ago with violent juveniles and this kind of tomfoolery with numbers would never get past my thesis committee…I would have been laughed off campus…

I suppose the Government can get away with this because it is political and has nothing to do with discerning the truth…but someone should learn how to hold their feet to the fire on this.

There are true numbers to be had…they may be good, they may be bad…but they exist.

The question becomes one of how to force them to the surface.


But thanks for all the intelligent commentary on this vexing question.

Best Wishes, James