ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


TN: Federal judge rules sex offender law punishes retroactively

[ – 4/6/21]

A federal judge ruled Monday that Tennessee’s sex offender registration act is unconstitutional, at least as it was applied retroactively to two offenders.

The ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee affects only the two men who sued, identified in court documents as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2.

“I think the ruling, while it is narrowly tailored to our clients, does open the door to the possibility of a class action,” attorney Ed Yarbrough said in an interview.

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson had already ruled in February that parts of the law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents people from being punished by a law passed after their crime was committed. On Monday, he ordered the state to stop enforcing any part of the law against the two plaintiffs and to remove their names from the sex offender registry.

Read the full article


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.
    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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I find it all to convenient for authority to turn one it’s head questions of constitutional congruence. Chief justice John G Roberts himself penned the persuasive argument to the Majorly ruling 6-3 in Smith V Doe. By turning the burden upon registrants to prove incongruity in the registration regime circumvents the regulatory purpose behind the prohibition upon Congressional use of ex post language upon crimes.

The question is not whether the regime is overly punitive or minimally punitive rather the true question is was it punitive in intent at all.

@ Tim in Wi

The courts seem to always give a pass to legislative intent, in so much that it serves some legitimate purpose in protection of the people. This assumption is based on myth and should be facially attacked in all federal circuits. Any legislative intent with reference to risk of recidivism is utterly and completely false.

The 6th circuit will now be filled with litigation based on Does vs Snyder precedent which was denied cert. They have found “…that the legislature did not intend the law to be punitive; nevertheless, considering several “guideposts,” the court determined that the actual effects of the statute were punitive.”

As-applied is easy for federal judges. Let’s see a broader facial action that cuts the legs off this medieval behemoth.

C J,
Thx for the imput.
No doubt DOE03(Alaska) was rushed and “tortured” and no attention was focused on the plain human subservience to DOC database property maintenance, which essentially obliterated the right to remain silent to information demanded in registration forms by government.
Instead they focussed on ” the internet broadcast” itself as a shaming punishment. That was a mistake. It’s like your dog complaining about your [Beware of dog] sign attached to your fence. While I’ve no doubt any rancher who advertises the worst of his herd on a world wide basis isn’t behaving in an unconstitutional manner, he will surely still be undermining his own long term outlook.

The reason the registry databases remain is the people believe they work to reduce recidivism.
Mr. Wolfe, who chimes in as an advocate, reports on the increases of efficacy, while attempting to champion it’s abolishment.Go figure.

If any federal facial challenge under Art1, 9-10 is to survive, as Packingham did, the focus of complaints must describe the relative disposition among man and database machine. These machines are ” property ” in every sense and as such all property demands maintenance. Note i chose the word “among” and not “between” and with good effect as there are many iterations of the database, sex offender registries are but one.

The best part of facial challenges for openers is the actual text of the statute in typed & numerical code that lends the prima facia. Fortunately the Whetterling Act contains ex post language clear as day and this fact underpinned the original granting of Certiorari. In fact, it’s safe to say that 1994 Congressional ” choice” of language forced the courts to consider to the relative disposition originally in Smith V. This too has a continuing effect on the court’s current calendars as ex post facto complaint always meets that burden which basically forces to intermediate courts to undertake the same questions over and over again precisely because the Rehnquist court upheld an actual ex post language law upon crime statute in the first case! This impacts efficiency in justice precisely because life terms equate to a failure to terminate via the retention of individuals who’d left the system. The plaintiffs here fit that description.

Yeah, I don’t get it. It’s only unconstitutional for those two Registrants? The rest of us are subject to a different U. S. Constitution? 🙄

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x