TX: Texas Sex Offender Registry Upheld by Fifth Circuit

[bloomberglaw.com – 12/17/19]

The Texas Sex Offender Registration Program, which requires sex offenders to make in person reports and restricts housing options, doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution by depriving registrants of due process, the Fifth Circuit ruled.

An individual convicted of a sex crime in a trial or plea agreement has received the minimum protections required by due process, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said Dec. 16.

Secondary harms to registrants, such as finding housing, aren’t direct infringements by the state, the court said.

The court also said the program doesn’t violate the Constitution, because it advances the purpose…

Read the full article [fee required]

Related (updated)

Commentary from Florida Action Committee


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

They must have discounted the facts in order to advance their agenda.

Time to appeal it to a higher court!

Worst part of the decision, “…even if the Does are correct that sex-offender registries have questionable efficacy, Chapter 62 still advances the nonpunitive public purpose of defending public safety. See Smith, 528 U.S. at 103. “A statute is not deemed punitive simply because it lacks a close or perfect fit with the nonpunitive aims it seeks to advance.””

This Court made a point to ignore Snyder, in fact they said who cares if the law has no rational relation, it doesn’t have to. But, I also believe that flies in the face of Smith, as they put a heavy weight on the rational relation factor of the test. “The Act’s rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a “[m]ost significant” factor in our determination that the statute’s effects are not punitive,” Smith.

What we know today, that SCOTUS did not know in 2003, is that there are mountains of evidence based on factual recidivism data of the states, that sex offenders are not a high-risk to reoffend. Furthermore, we have other empirical studies which show that the registries actually increase the risk of reoffence. It the shadow of what we know today, based on factual impartial data, one cannot conclude that the registries have a rational relation to a non-punitive purpose (key word being rational: which requires logical thinking and being reasonable).

It’s sad that the court ruled this way in this case after reading the decision published. Even more sad that the attorney did it without really thinking things through from what I’ve read. We don’t need a damaging precedent out there to be used against our efforts. I would make a comment about this is Texas but it really is the 5th circuit being on the conservative Gulf coast.

@AJ, et al – thoughts here?

To place a person on a registered list is just like placing a person in a concentration camp! Ask the Japanese people who lived here when the war was going on. Ask the indians when there land was taken over. The courts ruled it was ok for to put the Japanese people in lock down and the courts ruled it was ok to take this land from the rightful owners The Indians. Money talks to court judges who are voted in and Don’t follow the law of our constitution or our bill of rights. The oh mighty green back AKA money! Will make a voted in judge turn a blind eye just to stay in power even if they know it is wrong.. But if they side with a sex offender they doomed and will be voted out. So the Fifth is looking at the money/ votes! And Not looking at the facts!! That 99% of people our harmless to society!!! Yes people make mistakes that is how YOU Learn. And 99% of the so called sex people will NOT make that mistake again!!!

Speak a little truth and people will lose their minds!

Sadly the courts continue to be oblivious to the fact that a coordinated effort is transforming our justice system from reactive to proactive through social engineering. False statistics,moral panic and virtue signaling were all not only contemplated but anticipated. This was the true intent in 1996 and long before. They wanted registries long before 1996 but could never get it passed. Now watch registries expand to include other categories until our entire justice system is engulfed by the administrative state. If we as a nation are blind to recognize this than we deserve to fall. We are no better than Stalins Russia or Hitlers Germany at that point.

It’s important to follow the link above to the article by the Florida Action Committee.

This was a useless case by a lawyer scamming registrants out of money.

We got a Sid number just like the Jews got a number.

Here’s an article back in 2018 that some of you may have already read but it’s a good one. Here are a few excerpts:

“SORNA violates our nation’s founding documents by singling out a specific category of offenders for unfair, unconstitutional punishment. While the Department of Justice cites public safety as its rationale for continuing to enforce the overreaching requirements of SORNA, the program has metastasized, defacing some of our most treasured rights: the right to due process, the right to be free from double jeopardy and the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment.”

“The right to due process can be found in the Fifth and 14th Amendments of our Constitution. Due process is commonly understood to include the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the right to counsel – ideas that ensure a defendant is treated as fairly as possible in our adversarial criminal justice system. It can be “gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness.”

“Despite what some courts have found, the current requirements of SORNA violate due process, specifically the tenet of presumption of innocence, or the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Each state differs in how it implements SORNA, so an individual’s length of registration varies by state. For example, all sex offenders in California and South Carolina register for life, regardless of the crimes committed. By demanding post-detention reporting for up to a lifetime, the court is presuming that an individual has the propensity to commit a certain type of crime in the future and therefore must be scrupulously supervised.”

“Courts have addressed this concern when the individual required to report is a minor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s version of SORNA violates juvenile offenders’ due process rights because the requirements of satisfying SORNA assume that a juvenile will commit some sex offense in the future without giving him or her the opportunity to challenge that assumption. Equity demands assigning this same ruling to adult reporting requirements.”

There’s more from this article and says everything that’s true and final about the Registry. All it needed was the metaphorical mic drop.


Does this have any to do with Hearn v. Castilleja?