UPDATE 06/07: The date of the IML hearing has been changed from June 25 to July 9 at the government’s request.
The State Department today filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit which challenges the International Megan’s Law (IML) on procedural grounds. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 25 in Los Angeles.
In its motion, the State Department asserts that its final rule issued in September 2016 is consistent with the IML and that its press release issued in October 2017 that included the language of the unique identifier to be added to the passports of some registrants was a website update, not a regulation. In addition, the State Department asserts that it already had authority to deny passport cards to registrants prior to passage of the IML.
“The State Department motion does not change our position that the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “In addition, we continue to believe that the State Department completely lacks authority to deny passports cards to registrants.”
The IML lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District, of California on January 11, 2018. The agency’s response was initially due in March 2018, however, the agency requested and obtained a three-week extension for that response. Today was the deadline for the agency’s response.
I wonder what gave representative Smith the speculation that “sex offenders” are traveling overseas to commit criminal act against minors and if so, what source of evidence did he had of this, and is it credible evidence?
Suppose I live in a State where I’ve completed my registration term for an offense against a minor, am off my State’s registry, and have a valid, unmarked passport. I now travel–not move, just travel–to CA and remain there long enough to have to register. Under IML, I am now subject to the marked passport requirements…until I return to my home state and CA de-registers me. Thus even if I never relocate to CA, I’m still ensnared by IML simply through exercising my right to freedom of interstate travel.
I’m punished not for moving to a State with a longer registration period, I’m punished just for visiting one. And this doesn’t even address the argument that those convicted in CA can never enjoy the freedom I have back in my home State, off the registry.
1) Does IML have a chilling effect on my liberties of domestic (don’t wanna move to CA!) and international (don’t want a marked PP!) travel?*
2) Does IML violate the equal protection via the 5th Amdt? “Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area,” the Court has said, “is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975)) See also: Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 100 (1976) (“The federal sovereign, like the States, must govern impartially. The concept of equal justice under law is served by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as well as by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”)
*I also wonder if this argument could be used against a State (LA, FL, NY) where I can never get off the registry, thus consigning me to lifetime IML registration. This would certainly chill my desire to exercise freedom of travel and leave my home State.
I’ll gladly take some feedback and thoughts on this. What to do with the info, I have no idea. I just don’t see how IML isn’t a 5th Amendment violation. This is what happens when a Federal law rests upon State laws for its implementation.
Any new updates on this? I haven’t had time to go through the site recently due to work and every time I come back on there are a few hundred more comments.
So not really sure to check for updates. As for me, still living overseas. Can’t get a response from NY to take me off short of a lawsuit. And still no letter saying my passport is revoked.
Not traveling much because I need to save pages and don’t want to chance renewing.
I’m wondering…you guys have been talking about other states forcing you to register if your done in your home state…What about the other way around if u are a lifer, then if u move to a state with more lax so laws would you then get bumped on their catorization and maybe only have a 10 year regrestry? Or is that just wishful thinking
Notice in the request, they have suggested or even opened a more significant avenue to challenge the entire law: Obama’s regulatory imposition of efforts to thwart travel by registrants. Obama’s action can be challenged the same as Trump’s actions on immigration, and so far, those challenges have been successful, as a smokescreen based on wrongful intent and purposes. Taking such regulations and turning them into law, as this law has done, does not make it any less based on wrongful intent and purposes.
And this is registrant’s basic opposition anyway — so why hold back from raising the issue, as those challenging the immigration regulations have done and prevailed with?
At every turn, this group keeps doing the minor tweak and leaving the whole and allies horror in place, on this, on the tiers that are not even tiers are just renamed CORs (and actually makes the registration time for some offenses longer than they were! And is now building a huge bureaucracy that will make it impossible to ever end registration, that bureaucracy will be an army against us), etc.
A weak offense is not a good offense.
If a complete moron like some mexican gang member can get into the U.S. and live for yrs, any intelligent person should be able to “sneek” into a country and live/work.
any update on this? (bump)
I think I heard that the hearing is now scheduled for June 25th.
⛥⛥⛥ The hearing for ACSOL’s IML lawsuit is currently scheduled for June 25th in Federal Court in Los Angeles, California. ⛥⛥⛥
Countries are certainly capable of using the RFID chip to scan your passport in a way in which it does not seem to the traveler to be being scanned, that’s true and something we need to keep in mind when we think, and report back here, that they’re not scanning them.
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been authorized to create an Angel Watch Center to expand efforts to alert foreign law enforcement partners about the intended travel by convicted registered child sex offenders from the United States to their countries, following the signature of International Megan’s Law by the President on Monday. (written in 2016)
“ICE’s Operation Angel Watch plays a crucial role in the global fight against child sex tourism. Under this unique and innovative initiative, we are able to send actionable information to our law enforcement partners around the globe so that they can assess the situation and respond appropriately, whether that is to deny an individual entry into their country, or to monitor that individual’s travel for potential danger to children,” said ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña. “The creation of a formalized and expanded Angel Watch Center further enhances our efforts to protect children around the world.”
Initially created in 2007 by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Operation Angel Watch is managed by the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of the ICE Cyber Crimes Center and is a joint effort with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Marshals Service.
Operation Angel Watch targets individuals who have been previously convicted of sexual crimes against a child and who may pose a potential new threat: traveling overseas for the purpose of sexually abusing or exploiting minors, a crime known as “child sex tourism.”
From Le Miserables. Jean Valjeans’ conversation with the Bishop after he had to present a yellow passport showing that he was a criminal.
VJ-Do you have food?
B- Come in.
VJ-Look, I’m a convict. My name is Jean
Valjean. I’ve served 19 years’ hard labor.
They let me out four days ago. I’m on
parole. I have to go to Dijon to report
Monday, or they’ll send me back to
prison. Here’s my passport. I can’t read,
but I know what it says. “He’s dangerous.
B- Monsieur, you’re welcome to eat with
us as my guest.
VJ-I’m a convict. You saw my passport. I
know who you are. You’re gonna let me
inside your house?
MDE. GILOT(Housekeeper) -What crime
did you commit?
VJ-Maybe I killed someone. How do you
know I’m not going to murder you?
B-How do you know I’m not going to
murder you?
VJ-A joke?
B-I suppose we’ll have to trust each
other.
So is everybody getting ready for the oral arguments coming up in 1 week?
I remember the previous IML Challenge when the oral arguments were open to the public, and many of the RSOs from this group, actually went to the courthouse.
I haven’t heard of any instances where RSOs are making plans to attend, in order to hear the oral arguments, this time around.
Janice is the public invited to the hearing? Would there be audio or transcripts available afterwards?