International Megans Law as Compelled Speech

“The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).” International Megan’s Law (IML), passed in 2016, prohibits the State Department from issuing passports to individuals convicted of a sex offense against a minor unless those passports are branded with this phrase.

The federal government’s decision to brand its citizens’ passports with this stigmatizing message is novel and jarring, but the sole federal district court to consider a constitutional challenge to the passport identifier dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, deeming the provision government speech.

This Note argues that this passport identifier is more appropriately analyzed as a form of compelled speech, triggering strict scrutiny review that the IML’s passport identifier would not survive. Note on Michigan Law Review (pdf)

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

Was it this Compelled Speech approach that CA courts denied with prejudice in an earlier ACSOL lawsuit? If not, is it a viable approach?

The entire premise of IML is that they are presuming what I will do in the future. My case for example, I had a non-contact offense, and I had no communication with any victim. But IML is predicting that even though I never had a hands offense or communicated with anyone before, that is what I will do if I am allowed to travel. So they are accusing me of a future crime which I never did in the past. And by stamping it on my passport I am acknowledging that, yes, I am that potential danger. So indeed this is compelled speech.

Passport wording is no different than the case of words on state issued license plate.

Everybody wants to know when last time any legal action against IML was done by Bellucci or other lawyers and what is outcome ?

Hopefully the right people come forward for lawsuits and can put this unconstitutional law in the history of useless laws passed by Rep. Chris Smith. Lawmakers that pass useless laws should have a marker on their lapel when entering the capital. Maybe UPS for Useless Politician Scumbag!! After all it will save society from the evil laws.

WE all know it is compelled speech. It is also overbroad. IMO only if a crime has been proven related to international travel should the distinction be made. International travel isn’t an evil in itself. Unfortunately IML serves the same purpose as SOR Broadcasts except the notice provided isn’t a passive gov activity. It as a proactive regime with stated purpose. Unfortunately that purpose is to protect foreigners on their own soil. And actually that is the job of that government and not the job of the U.S. GOV.

Protecting foreign lands and affairs is something we tax payers are sick of. Unfortunately Globalist interest have infiltrated our Congress in a big way. We will need to change that general disposition before we can get a handle on the trillions of U.S. debt load.

Any recent reports from Belize? My wife and I have traveled there several times and would like to go for a month or so this coming winter. I read today that Belize is admitting tourists again, I wonder if they have a problem with sex offenders.

These statements like “criminal act against children” are being used in such terms to make foreign countries compelled to take action with the angel watch on behalf of the US government, because people are squeamish if they discuss such topics like this. The US Government is assuming that a covered traveler that has complied with the 21 day advance notification under IML which none of that makes sense, is traveling for the purpose to commit criminal act against children, chances are giving the benefit of the doubt that it’s highly unlikely going to happen, and knowing about the serious consequences if caught should’ve help motivate covered travelers to stay out of trouble if they travel to a foreign country.

Having had the identifier for about 3 years now, it has not stopped me from travel in Europe. I go twice a year, though i always enter through Amsterdam. Once there, the entire shengen zone is at my disposal. My passport never gets checked again until leaving back to the states. There has been talk about moving the identifier to page 1. This is even more stigmatizing. If the interpol and local agencies are informed of our travel, this is more of a shaming then anything else.