The Court issued two opinions on Monday morning. In Nichols v. United States, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court unanimously ruled that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act did not require Nichols, a registered sex offender, to update his registration in Kansas once he left the state. Opinion
Related
SCOTUS: Justices weigh whether sex offenders should be tracked worldwide (CA RSOL)
Supreme Court sides with sex offender in registry dispute
8-0 SHUTOUT!!!
Sorry about the all-caps violation, but this is signficant. Too bad this decision wasn’t rendered before the arguments in San Francisco last week, as this decition would have been among the strongest arguments used. At least the judge can now consider this decision in her granting a stay.
SIDE NOTE: In siding with our side finally, is John Roberts starting to realize that registration is not as simple as filling out a Price Club application? Will this bode well for potentially taking in more registration cases?
Not wanting to sound like a wet blanket, but is this true? SORNA required international travel notification in 2012. Are they referring to IML?
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/275075-supreme-court-sides-with-sex-offender-in-registry-dispute
alito states in no way does this let offenders escape punishment…wait i thought registration wasn’t punishment i hope janice noticed that he stated it is punishment
sounds like west Germany before the wall came down
Houston, we have a problem. Alito calls this punishment. Yet SCOTUS ruled the registry regulatory. Like to see the double talk on this.
Well done! I’m very happy for him. This was certainly a disturbing story/they hunted him down to a foreign country and deported him back to the US/I’m sure this was very embarrassing and stressful. My only concern now is, will the Philippines allow him to return with their current band. Best wishes
If this topic went back to SCOTUS, then you will know you have one vote in favor of calling it punishment. However, since Justice Alito did not join SCOTUS until after the Smith v Doe (No. 01—729) opinion was given March 2003 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html), it would require a new vote on this topic from a different angle.
NOW…he did replace Justice O’Connor who voted it was not punishment. Therefore, the high court would be in favor of finding it being labeled as punishment provided the vote was taken today possibly with all else remaining the same. A yay vote replacing a nay vote in favor of calling it punishment and against the Constitution.
(***Justice Alito was the 2006 nomination where our current POTUS filibustered his nomination. There is a new SCOTUS nominee now who could very well vote in favor of calling it punishment too to counter Justice Scalia’s vote of not calling it punishment. That could take two votes away from the non-punishment opinion and added to the punishment opinion, making a swing to 6-3 all else being the same. A new tact and angle would need to be found and litigated I believe for SCOUTS to review this punishment vs non-punishment topic and possibly ex posto facto.)
Therefore, get on the phone, etc and have the new nominee voted on by the Congress.
Here is the SCOTUS Blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-news-item-the-convicted-sex-offender-wins-unanimously/
” In response to questioning by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at oral argument, the government conceded that Nichols’s situation would have been covered by this new law. With that concession, the parade of horribles — the specter of hundreds of convicted sex offenders stealing away in the dead of night to foreign havens of libertinism, with no way to track them down – disappeared.”
This is all fallacy and BS..stats and facts please?
Does this means he is entitled to millions in punitive compensation for kidnapping, false arrest, and false imprisonment? In addition the US government return him to the Philippines?
Correct me if I’m wrong, please. SORNA is a Federal “Guideline.” But the states have their own rules…there is no Federal “law” per se. A state is either non-compliant (no 21 day notification requirement, for example), partially compliant (maybe they have 21 day notification rule, but have other provisions that vary from SORNA), or they have adapted 100% of SORNA and are judged to be compliant. So the 21 day notification could be enforced only after the individual state has adopted it. Washington State for example had not adopted it when it first hit the books. I traveled to South America in 2013 and it was not required by my state at that time, but now it is. These things may all change under IML.
Hopefully, the Court will not miss the major point that equating all people on the registry to rapists, molesters, and predators involved in the sex trade, is cruelly over reaching and insanely broad. This is creating a Class where none existed before. Judges determine punishment in every case based on the specifics of the crime and the particular defendant. How can they turn their backs on that sacred principle, and punish everyone in a group the same way? The logic defies me. Only in America, I guess.
Does this law apply to all those who have to register? I guess my real question is how does this apply to someone who has dual citizenship? If a person has citizenship both in The US and in Mexico does he still have to report, im assuming one has to report to the US that they are planning to travel to Mexico so once mexico finds out they can deny entry to that person. But if this said person has dual ciitizenship he cannot be denied entry into mexico based on his constitutional rights. So how will this law affect these kinds of cases? If a person has dual citizenship and both countries constitution states that they cannot be denied entry?
The United States exercises jurisdiction over its citizens abroad under the ‘Nationality Principle.’ In light of this, some changes can be predicted to the SORNA, and to the statute governing renunciation of U.S. citizenship, in part due to the Nichols case.
U.S. citizen’s residing abroad who are registered sex offenders will be required to register with the U.S. consulate or embassy, and the Department of State will be obligated to inform the governments of those foreign countries of the presence and the nature of the offense of the U.S. offender living in that foreign jurisdiction.
Moreover,in the future, all registered U.S. citizen sex offenders temporarily visiting a foreign country will have to register with the U.S. Embassy within a given time following their arrival into the country. Their picture and personal information will be provided on a publicly available web-site by the Department of State, and the governments of the foreign countries will be notified of their presence.
In addition, the statute governing renunciation will be amended such as not to permit registered sex offenders to renounce their citizenship as long as they remain registered. Any attempt to expatriate or move to a foreign country will become an extraditable offense, and the registered offender will be brought back to the United States, either by formal extradition proceedings, or by extraordinary rendition. Most likely any attempt to expatriate will lead to lifetime civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. Such commitment is not deemed to be punishment.
This will not be considered punishment, but an effort to protect citizens world wide, and to assist the registered offender in enjoying the benefits and protection of U.S. laws.
I don’t understand this, is this saying if you have a Resident Visa in a foreign country which means They already know of your past crimal history, we still have to go to US Embassy to register and will be on a public Web site?
This is, as aptly noted, pure conjecture.
However, it seems a logical extrapolation of what already has come to pass!
Who would ever have thought that any country would openly stigmatize its citizens in international travel documents and obstruct their movement across international borders?
The Nichols case will provide Congressman Smith with further incentive to pursue the next logical step, registration of any and all U.S. citizens abroad who are on the sex offender registry based on the nationality principle. And, while Smith is at it, he will slip by an amendment of the renunciation statute, to make sure they cannot circumvent registration by the expedient of expatriation.
The U.S. wants to continue to help its registered citizens, who otherwise might not receive the supervision and support by the criminal justice system, and be totally abandoned and left to their own devices in liberal Northern European countries. Sex offenders might raise families and become integrated, productive members of society, instead of receiving help and possible civil commitment at the behest of the United States.
Congressman Smith only wants to help registered U.S. citizens, not punish them.
Dear PK:
As a non RSO & non SO, but advocate of civil rights and supporter of the militia, I wish you the best of luck in all you endeavors.
While trying not to be petty, your intended filing would pertain to states’ rights to assert jurisdiction of U.S. citizens who are no longer citizen’s of that particular state.
The IML and SORNA, as it will be amended, in order to pander to U.S. constituents would apply to all U.S. citizens, regardless of past, present, or future state citizenship.
A U.S. citizenship, by reason of birth into the most free republic the world has ever known, is subject to the jurisdiction of several sovereigns; at a very minimum the state where he was borne and the United States of America.
It is the latter that wants to help its citizens from cradle to grave.