I wanted to add a few words to co-blogger Jonathan Adler’s posting about the recent 6th Circuit decision in Doe v. Snyder, in which the court voided application of the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on the grounds that it imposes retroactive punishment on previously convicted sex offenders in violation of the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. Full Editorial
***this article is from September 2016. Sorry. Moderator***
Another nice encouraging piece from the Washinton Post. We need to become more assertive and continue to push on this illicit house of cards built on a foundation of irrational fear and outright lies.
It is worth noting that many of the editorial articles and scholarly review articles that are being written in concurrence with decisions against the SORA scheme are from conservative and libertarian writers. David Post, Jonathan Adler, and Mark Stern are frequent contributors to right leaning sites and shows that from a Constitutional law viewpoint, we might have more allies on the court than thought.
Did I miss something here? This editorial is over a year old (Sept 7, 2016). It’s nice to see it on the day SCOTUS is considering, inter alia, whether to accept Snyder. But beyond that, it’s quite an old, though certainly helpful, editorial.
So, what do you all think the response by legislatures around the country will be when the Sex Offender designation starts to fall apart due to a future SCOTUS ruling that mostly hinges on being off of probation and parole and no longer under government supervision?
I think the end result will be the state’s modifying restrictions on sex offenders to bring them barely compliant with SCOTUS for those on the list now. Those that have completed their sentences should be under less restrictions, and hopefully no longer on a public list.
Unfortunately though, I think in the case of all future sex offenders they’ll get us right back to where we are now but make it look constitutional. They’ll simply instate and mandate lifetime “supervision” on those convicted of sex crimes, and place all the same restrictions back on that we are hopeful to get rid of now. Instead of reporting to police, you’ll just keep reporting to a P.O. for life. They’ll be able to regulate everything all over again.
Unless an alien species invades earth, I don’t think legislatures will give up on the easy targets that are sex offenders.
Here’s a break down from the folks at SCOTUS regarding the Justices conference today (9/25). A little crack of information to the upcoming important news every one hoping and waiting for…
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/cert-grants-long-conference-september-effect/#more-262009
Reason org. has released another excellent article for our cause. As to Bobby, we have repeatedly stated why we think it is better for you and us that the high COURT grant cert in SNYDER case. A denial of cert is only a temporary win for u. As AJ, myself, and few others have stated why we need scotus to take the case and settle the laws. We want a permanent win, not a temporary win.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/27/scotus-shouldnt-let-fear-of-sex-offender
Here’s my repost, there was an article I read recently that opioned the reason USGG recommended SCOTUS denial of SNYDER cert was because he was not too comfortable with the current panel of the COURT, especially after seeing KENNEDY’s troubling statement in the Packingham case. The tactic was to sacrifice the SNYDER case and wait till Trump has a chance to replace some justices. At the time there was speculation that Kennedy was thinking of retiring, and Girnburg would not last too long given her age and current health. Actually SCOTUS denied cert will give little weight, even though it will “tentatively” give victory to states in 6th circuit. But let not forget, there have been MANY bad sex offender rulings coming, pending, and leaving before SCOTUS, with many cert app denied (ie. 2nd circuit, 3rd Circuit, 5th circuit, 7th circuit, 8th circuit and 11th circuit). The point I want to emphasise…….SCOTUS needs to accept this case and settle the laws once and for all. A denial of cert would meant it will take several more years before another case be brought before them, by then the panel off SCOTUS will definitely changes! In sum, do we want a case presented to the court without the benefit of ginburg and kennedy ? Surely if cert is deny, the next expo facto case that is guarantee to reach scotus to resolve circuits split….we will not have those two justices by our battle. I can not fathom whom trump will pick to replace ginburg and kennedy. But surely the chance for a second alito or thomas is on the horizon. Wish what u want, but be careful of what u wish for…
ok here is something I have been wondering about, even though I believe they would leave it as it stands right now. So lets say SCOTUS takes Snyder, I think they should tell Michigan and possibly other states to STOP enforcing their registries since both The 6th Circuit and SCOTUS has already denied Michigan’s stays. Michigan or Tennessee, nor Ohio, or Kentucky should have to adhere to the registry until SCOTUS makes a final ruling on the registry. I hope that makes since, I really bad at wording things on paper.
Bobby and TS…(Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposed severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system… is also NOT an issue before the Court.) Well it is (SNYDER) NOW before the Court. Does that statement ring a bell? Yes, it’s a loud echo of Justice Kennedy in Packingham case. And that’s why it’s the right timing for SCOTUS to grant the petition to affirm the 6th and annihilate all the federal circuit courts (especially 11th and 5th circuit) that have issued really bad rulings for registrants. As AJ predicted 6-3 on our favorite. I am less optimistic and settle for a 5-4 in our favorite. Anybody else wanna predict? At the end of the day, let’s see who is good at guessing number :).
I don’t think this debate will make one ounce of difference either way. SCOTUS will do what it thinks right.
Here’s 2 informative and educational article released yesterday and this morning regarding sept 25 conference and cert grants…
https://empiricalscotus.com/2017/09/27/petitions-long-conference/
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/dobbs-wire-news-supreme-court/
Some legal advises on September 25 post conference…
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/supreme-court-update/
Hello All,
Well I e-mail Amy Howe, and got an e-mail back from her about 10 minutes ago, I asked her about the Snyder case, and if she knew if it had been accepte or denied, and this is her response back to me.
They did not act on Snyder today. They could act on it on Monday, when they issue a lot of additional orders from the September 25 conference. (There is a chance that they will not and instead hold it over for reconsideration at the next conference, but a relatively small one.)