“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)
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.
On IML,
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.