WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether states can require ID cards or drivers licenses to identify people as convicted sex offenders.
A Louisiana man, Tazin Hill, challenged a state law that required him to carry an identification card that included the words “sex offender” in all-capital letters after he was convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old girl when he was 32.
Hill said the law violated the First Amendment by forcing him to convey the government’s message. A state court judge agreed, finding that the sex-offender designation was not “the least restrictive way to further the state’s legitimate interest of notifying law enforcement” of a person’s status, and suggesting that the state could find a more discreet alternative.
Louisiana’s Supreme Court concurred with that conclusion, so the state’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court. But the court denied review without comment Monday.
This is good new. But it would have been nice to have SCOTUS affirm this judgement so it would be binding in all States. But this will make it easier to contest markers on ID’s in other States and perhaps passports.
So they agree with the ruling, but they do not want to appear soft on crime, especial sex crimes.
In a way, this is good for us. We have shown that we can win at the circuit levels and this might just be the road to if not elimination, then restriction. Roberts is too worried about overturning precedents, like Smith v Doe. But the circuits aren’t. If there are enough cases decided at circuit levels, especially in overwhelming fashion, the USSC might just throw its hands up.
Case in point, North Carolina (Internet Restrictions), MI (Registry as punishment), and now NO (Compelled speech on licenses) have now all left to stand by the USSC.
This is just SCOTUS playing a neutral role by not making a ruling. They know that anything negative made against SORNA, it would open the floodgates to allow further challenges against IML. In other words, they’re protecting the house of cards.
Fact is SCOTUS does not grant cert unless there is a viable question to contemplate. SCOTUS has granted cert on the messaging demand by state law on this issue. Therefore, it is safe to presume a issue of constitutionally regarding the law itself has always been therein the regime. These ARE the kinds of issues lawmakers as suppose to contemplate before passage in the people’s houses. Generally, those kinds of issues of constitutional allegiance are considered by state’s ( or fed) judiciary committee. Clearly unconstitutional laws and tactics are not being weeded out by those important committee.
This isn’t such good news. The court declining to hear the case means they’ll be legal anywhere else outside of Louisiana.
Here is an additional source:
Every State is different when it comes to this sex registry issue. These special Id cards or these dog tags for this and that. One wonders when they are gonna issue ID’s cards for the most brainy, the most smartest, the most violent, or who lacks wisdom today. Who is shooting who in the pants. Much of this registry is a come on tactic. Sex is the most common of all sins. Giving out superlatives is a bad judgement call for anyone. That would be a bit bias. Peoples personal business is their own personal business as long as it doesn’t provoke anyone. Are law enforcement busybodies today. busibodies?
This article should tell everyone that much of this registry is a bit prudish. Now how can a sinner correct a sinner? No officer of true justice should bait a victim like this. It goes against their code of ethics no matter what they say. Can everyone say “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore”.
From LA:
People forget in-person voting and voting registration requires an ID too…
I think it important to point out that SCOTUS has never issued an Opinion stating active notifications by the State regarding PFRs is okay. Indeed, in Smith SCOTUS said, “the notification system is a passive one: An individual must seek access to the information.”
So aside from it being compelled speech, a marked DL is not in any way supported by SCOTUS precedent. All the allowing of active notification is going on within the lower courts.
Emails sent to MS, OK, FL, and KS ACLU offices with the text below and specific alterations for those states. Would be nice if one of them took it on, but not sure they will with the legal topics they feel should be addressed in court. I don’t think TN got text on their DLs/IDs as was proposed in 2014. Tempted to send one to the GA ACLU office so they can send a warning shot across the GA movement’s bow to put something on their DLs/IDs. Maybe someone will step to be a Doe here or work with a private atty on the topic. Please feel free to use this if you want to voice your opinion on the matter at hand with each respective state or some facsimile of.
*****************
RE: ACLU Kansas to address KS DL/ID and “Registered Offender” marking
Sir/Ma’am,
Sex Offender markings on Drivers Licenses (DLs) and Identification Cards (IDs) have been found in two courts, i.e. Louisiana State Supreme Court and Middle District of Alabama Federal Court, to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS denied cert for Louisiana v Hill ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-sex-offender-id-cards/5786899001/) staying the LA State Supreme Court ruling and Alabama v Doe (https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0606-164) was found in the favor of the plaintiffs (Doe) in the Middle District of Alabama. While these are not binding precedent in any court outside of those two states, they are persuasive cases on the topic and would carry weight possibly in another court should they be used in a legal effort to remove markings from DLs/IDs.
This brings me to Kansas and their related marking of “Registered Offender” on their DLs/IDs for those people who are forced to register on their sex offender registry. While it is not a hot topic of the day that one would want to take on like immigrant rights or another hot political topic, it is a constitutional topic that needs to be addressed. Those Kansans who are forced to register do not need a compelled speech marker on their DLs/IDs while they are used in public for the most basic of things, e.g. voting, banking, buying alcohol/tobacco, etc. This compelled speech is in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, as seen in the court rulings. Frankly, there does not need to be any markers on DLs/IDs, least restrictive or not. Law Enforcement should know from their “wants/warrants” check the status of the person. Criminal history is not needed on any DL/ID. If it is allowed for people forced to register, then where will it stop if someone wants to be another marker on the DL/ID for another crime conviction that the public concerns itself with, e.g. DUI, assault, theft, etc.
Given the second case on this matters finds in favor of the people who are impacted by the compelled speech marker, it is time for the Kansas ACLU to address this matter for these people using the persuasive precedent set in a court of your choosing.
Regards,
An American for Constitutional Laws
I live in Louisiana and the ruling has lifted weight off my shoulders. I now show my ID without worry when I need to do all the things involving a license. Which is a lot. The state tried to add tiers to the front in a bill that was killed by the department of safety. The main reason was because our people showed up and spoke out. A mother spoke out about her son who had been in a relationship with someone who was not old enough for consent. They have been married for a decade now and still, he must be punished for that. “Mama was right colonel sanders”.
So the bottom line is fair and equal justice for all. Should I and I use myself for example get the same treatment as opposed to one that actually did something physical. This internet vs physical situations, how cosmopolitan.. brings up a whole set of problems. Even the labeling and special ID’s need some adducated adjustment. What degree of honor does one uphold in being ordained if government goes above the supreme?
Why do you suppose they give one a plea deal after the fact or before the fact, [snip]. While government has the power in many ways they are prosecuting their own evil and standards of justice or who is the supreme authority? So who is blind or who is leading the blind. Justice for one is justice for all in much of this whole registry labeling, tier factor ordeal
[snip]