News from the U.S. Supreme Court – the court has NOT decided whether it will review Doe v. Snyder, last summer’s ground-breaking decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review an important ruling (Doe v. Snyder) which was handed down last summer by a federal appeals court, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The request was discussed in a private conference last Friday and today we learned the result – the Supreme Court has made NO decision on the request for review. They did not reject it, they did not grant it. Instead the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for their opinion, in the form of a legal brief. The Solicitor General is the lawyer who represents the federal government – the Trump Administration — in Supreme Court matters. What does this mean? The Supreme Court did not outright reject the request for review but they apparently have some interest in this case and might still decide to grant review in the near future. So stay tuned for further action by the Supreme Court.
What’s at stake: Doe v. Snyder is a big victory and when the 6th Circuit issued its decision it became the first federal appeals court to rule that parts of a sex offense registration law are punishment, and unconstitutional if they’re applied retroactively – see the news headlines, below. Michigan’s sex offense registry law was challenged and it was cut back by the 6th Circuit’s decision. Michigan lost so they’re hoping to undo the damage to their registration law by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit decision.
What about Supreme Court review of this case, good or bad idea? If the Supreme Court rejects the request for review, the 6th Circuit decision stands and is in effect for Michigan and the other states (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) in that federal circuit. If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, anything can happen – the Supreme Court could uphold the 6th Circuit’s decision or change it or even uphold the Michigan registration law. If the Supreme Court grants review, by the time the case is actually heard the currently vacant seat on the court is likely to be filled with a Trump administration nominee. With so much uncertainty, some would prefer the Supreme Court refuse to review the case and just let the 6th Circuit decision alone. The 6th Circuit decision means that a number of people will be freed from the registry but that is up in the air while the Supreme Court decides what to do. Bold and ground-breaking, the 6th Circuit ruling is already influencing other courts. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
——————-
The order from the US Supreme Court in the case of Doe v Snyder, the challenge to the Ex Post Facto application of Sex Offender registry conditions, reads as follows:
“The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.”
I believe it’s fair to say what the Solicitor General’s position will be. It’s difficult to formulate an opinion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing – comments are welcome. From FAC
——————-
Commentary from SCOTUSblog:
And in Snyder v. Doe, the justices asked the federal government to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on whether the application of various provisions of the sex-offender-registry laws to individuals who were convicted before the laws were enacted violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on retroactive punishment. There is no deadline for the federal government to file its brief, although it is likely to do so by fall.
Soooo….the acting solicitor general took office about 2 weeks ago. Is this just a stall tactic or standard procedure?
Well if SCOTUS is asking the solicitor general for their opinion it sounds as if we are will be screwed, I mean the Government came up with the STUPID Registry in the first place, so of course they will be on Michigan’s side, as long as they can keep making that illegal money. So does anyone know how long it’s going to take for SCOTUS to make a decision now? will it it be another 6 months? another year?. it’s obvious that it is Punitive, what’s the hang up. I guess I need to contact Ms Aukerman and find out what is going on.
Janice? What do you think about this development?
Well everyone I just heard back from Ms Aukerman and she said that now that SCOTUS asked the Solicitor General for his opinion and if he wanted to file a brief on this matter, it will probably be months before SCOTUS decides whether to deny or grant a review, so he we go waiting even longer and longer.
I thought scouts would decide based on the merits of the Case? Not based on someone else’s opinion, much less the opinion of the government who came up with this feel good legislation in the first place?
Well, I never heard of the Solicitor General being a member of SCOTUS.
My guess is they are giving the Solicitor General the opportunity to introduce new evidence, that Michigan failed to conjure up, to debunk the scientific evidence against the registry – ya know like, how it is disputed how much humans contribute to global warming. Be prepared to see some new number and studies being cited we have never seen before. After all, the integrity of the court is at stake here – science has thrown egg of their faces and we can’t have that.
Right now EVERYTHING is speculation. We have been waiting on this(Ex post Facto) for a long time and now it’s here. We are all use to being absolutely trampled on and humiliated based on an error stating a high risk of recidivism made by the Supreme Court. I’m scared myself but I believe in the system and feel that it was an innocent mistake from the Justice’s that got us here and they NOW know it. That’s why they are doing what they are doing. They will fix this. It’s easy to be miserable because of what we have ALL endured and continue to endure but I see this as a time to be Optimistic. Godspeed to all who are for us!
If and when the Solicitor General files a brief, will they give rebuttal opportunity to the Appellee? Any further briefing allowed?
Does everyone realize this is EXACTLY how our registry was found constitutional in the first place and infected thousands of laws as discovered by Ira Ellman?
Prior to Smith V Doe the United States solicitor general’s office was asked to do the same thing in McKune v. Lile. He was able to claim the “80% recidivism” rate and start the false “frightening and high” myth that is totally debunked by any real studies or experts, and the Justices bought it hook-line-and-sinker. There was no fact checking. The Justice’s used this reasoning again in Smith V Doe, and it became “truth” used against us in thousands of cases and to create thousands of laws that reference Smith V Doe’s falsehoods.
This could go horribly if history is allowed to repeat itself. I don’t know if the Justice’s are truly dumb enough to believe whatever the SG says or if they simply want to use the SG report as their scape-goat to rule against us even though they know the registry is unconstitutional.
For those that missed the Ira Ellman report for 2015:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429
I see SCOTUS asking for the SG opinion as the Court simply being slow, prudent and…judicious. I think it may also signal a little bit of their thinking, since I doubt SCOTUS asks the SG’s opinion on every Ex Post Facto lawsuit. It strikes me as odd that SCOTUS wants Federal input on a State suit. So, are they giving the SG’s office a chance to correct their lies from before, or does SCOTUS see Snyder as a keystone piece in the SO version of Jenga? Who knows, the SG may decline to offer opinion, saying it’s a State, not Federal, issue. I still think that if Snyder is affirmed, the whole SOR laws and schemes start crumbling as fast as lawsuits can get filed. I’m hopeful, but I also cringe at the possibility that the 6th Circuit gets overturned, as some stats show happens more than other circuits (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/).
–AJ
Maybe they’d grow a pair and uphold our constitutional rights if we riot in the streets. Hope it doesn’t come to that, but I’m done taking it up the tailpipe.
I feel like this is bad for us because…if they were leaning towards voting in favor of Michigan, why wouldn’t they just do so? My thought is that they can’t, in good faith, deny that this is punitive/ex post facto. Therefore, they’re putting the onus on someone (Solicitor General) who probably doesn’t care and will support Michigan. This is complete BS and spineless of the scotus to not make a decision. It’s basically come down to the scotus now seeing how all of this is unconstitutional, yet don’t want to allow it to be overthrown.
Well, at least we may know where Justice Kagan stands. She almost immediately denied the Michigan request for an emergency stay of the lower courts ruling. The fact that the 6th circuit was unanimous speaks volumes of this case. Does everyone remember how the judges; who are all conservatives…totally lambasted the registry. Originally the registry was not supposed to be public at all; it was originally only open to law enforcement. I think they invited the solicitor general because this case would more than likely affect the whole United States.
In Smith vs Doe The Supreme Court concluded that “monitoring” registrants was not retributive by noting the “minor and indirect” nature of the “disability or restraint,” which allowed registrants “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision”
High/ low recidivism, propensities to engage in this or that, sex trafficking statistics, public outcries, community safety, the cessation of current or future funding- NONE of it is relevant and they know it. The retroactive application of these laws is the scaffolding of a virtual prison. Mr Wall will have to reconcile their previous conclusions with todays reality. That will be a tall order.
That last sentence about a registrants illusory freedom will come back to haunt them.
yep can’t wait to see how the AG tries to defend this beast…
Sure makes one think about why the Supreme court needs to hide behind an administration’s interpretation of the Constitution. Isn’t the SCOTUS ceding territory and aren’t they the all knowledgeable and final word of all things Constitutional
The more I read things about the S. G. and SCOTUS and Does v Snyder, and the fact the S.G. is now been thrown in the mix, I have to admit I am extremely nervous. I had high hopes that the decision would of been made already, and I still don’t understand why the S.G. is even involved, but hopefully we will have a final decision by late spring or at the very least some time this summer.It maybe wish full thinking but maybe he won’t even write a brief on Does v Snyder.
Hi Everyone,
I just read an article that gave a example of the Solicitor General and SCOTUS that is suppose to give us an idea on the Does v Snyder case, I’m guessing.
I don’t under stand how it’s suppose to help us or how it’s suppose to give us an idea on how it works but just look up the case NICHOLS V UNITED STATES.
Please let me know what you guys think, and how this example is suppose to help us Thanks.
hello everyone,
Just in case anyone was wondering what was going on with Doe v Snyder, I e-mailed Ms Aukerman yesterday and asked her that very question, along with what it means when SCOTUS gets the SG invovled, and this is what she wrote back to me.
The fact that the SG is weighing in means the chances that the Supreme Court will take the case go way up. It is unlikely we will have a decision from the Supreme Court until the fall. It is hard to know how this will affect Temelkoski.
Sorry I don’t have a better update for everyone, but I hope this helps a little bit.
Do you really think that the SG’s office would listen if we were to call them? I know they need to be educated on the truth about who really reoffends. And we all know that it’s not the sex offenders who use the prisons as a revolving door.
I was coerced into taking a plea bargain of deferred adjudicated probation on 02/28/94. For a crime I did not commit, supposedly happened on 03/12/91. The law I pled under was very specific, a dismissal without prejudice upon completion. I successfully completed the 5 year term on 03/02/99. The end, so I thought. Fastforward to 04/29/09. I was arrested for my ex & her son-in-law conspiring on the same phone call to a narcotics officer that misled the judge by concealing they handed the phone back & forth. Making it seem they were two independent sources. Now, Louisiana has forced me to register as a convicted sex offender for a charge “dismissed without prejudice” (dismissed without any disabilities or disqualifications for the conviction of the offense) over 18 years ago, a charge from over 26 years ago, and in another state. I have even been “told” this does not violate “expost facto” or the 4th Amendment. I have a sworn document from the very court where the charge was dismissed stating, “THIS IS NOT A CONVICTION” dated 05/01/14, that Louisiana has accepted on record. Yet, still forcing me to register as “convicted sex offender”. Please explain how this is legal?!
Hi Everyone,
I know we are still waiting to hear from SCOTUS concerning Does v Snyder, which as we have all heard we won’t have a decision until the fall. So does anyone know if The Michigan Supreme Court will wait till SCOTUS makes a decision on Does v Snyder before they make a final decision on The People of Michigan v Temelkoski or will they have to decide Temelkoski soon. any thoughts on this situation? It just seems like we should of heard something on Temelkoski by now.
hello,
Well People, for those that are interested or wondering about Temelkoski or Snyder,and I know David M. is along with my self. I just got an e-mail back from Ms Aukerman and she said we should hear something from the Temelkoski case by July, but Snyder will take longer.
I guess my question is if the two cases clash with one another what happens then? but from the Temelkoski argument that is on audio by the way and then way the Snyder case was argued both courts seem to be on the same page.(in our favor) but I guess we will see soon.
Just thought you would all like to know the latest concerning Temelkoski and Snyder.
I just registered in Michigan and paid my yearly $50 fee to register. The lady registering me said…. “You just got a new license and didn’t let us know of the new experation date.” I replied… I didn’t realize that’s something I had to even do.” The truth is I lost my license and had to get it replaced. My birthday was four months after replacing my lost license and Michigan renewed my license changing my experation date. I thought I was just replacing my license. That is what I asked the DMV to do. I also noticed the three pages of registered citizens in my zip code is now just three people including myself. So I checked other nearby zip codes as I had done in the past. I was kinda shocked to notice most the previous registered citizens had vanished off the registry. Moved? Taken off the registry? Or what I think…. Nit picked back to jail by a much more aggressive attitude brought on by a police force that is becoming more and more aggressive and destructive thinking that rounding up and locking up all RSO’s is somehow doing society a favor. I also noticed the few registered citizens free are much lower crimes and have been on the registry for decades.
I sure hope these Michigan cases in high courts continue down the path of sanity or else I might be the only registered citizen free soon in my zip code. It is a enormous waste of resources locking everyone up as long as humanly possible. Of course I wrote all the Michigan ACLU lawyers to tell them of my on going enhanced registration aggressiveness by my local law enforcement.