Sotomayor has constitutional concerns in case of sex offender who couldn’t find housing

Source: 2/23/22

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is expressing “serious constitutional concerns” in the case of a sex offender forced to spend additional time in prison because he couldn’t find housing far enough away from schools in New York City.

Sotomayor raised her concerns in a Feb. 22 statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in the case of Angel ____.

Sotomayor said she agreed that Angel’s cert petition doesn’t satisfy the court’s criteria for hearing cases. But she raised questions about the effects of a New York law that bans certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school after their release, which is “no easy task” in New York City.

Angel had proposed living with his mother and daughter in their New York City apartment when he qualified for release to community supervision. But the residence was too close to a school, as were dozens of other addresses that he proposed.

“Despite the empirical evidence, legislatures and agencies are often not receptive to the plight of people convicted of sex offenses and their struggles in returning to their communities,” Sotomayor wrote. “Nevertheless, the Constitution protects all people, and it prohibits the deprivation of liberty based solely on speculation and fear.

Read the full article


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
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

Listen to the late, great RBG! The registering is punishment Sotomayor!

Dang. Glad to hear a SCOTUS member raise empirical evidence concern. There’s no way they could wiggle out of that another time around.

Good for you Sotomayor!!

While this is a positive expression and provides us all a glimmer of hope for future successes in this court, it is only a glimmer, to be sure. But it certainly beats the alternative, and I’m sure we all appreciate any positives emanating from the US Supremes. I pray that at least five of the nine shares in Justice Sotomayor’s views. Our time will come. Keep the faith.

Who can define or explain for me why this case doesn’t meet the criteria for cert approval for Review?

She gets it.

Pack, the court? Fill it with people like her? Methinks the answer is yes.

I posted this story in the general comments. The moderators included a link to the actual opinion from Sotomayor. Can it be added here?

[MODERATORS RESPONSE: We have no way of moving comments, so please post a new comment with the information you desire]

⭐ Compelled Speech? ⭐
The Supreme Court Just Teed Up a Direct Assault on Civil Rights Law

I find SCOTUS granting cert to this case very frustrating. The plaintiff in this case, graphic designer, Lorie Smith, does not even design websites yet. So SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case in which no harm has occurred to the plaintiff nor will any harm occur until she actually – if ever – starts creating websites AND a same-sex couple comes to her requesting her services. 🤔

But a judge denied ACSOL’s initial IML lawsuit because the judge felt that ACSOL and its plaintiffs had no standing since no one had yet been harmed by the IML requirements (for example, being required to submit 21-day Advance Travel Notification [thus hindering free travel]) and the related actions to be taken by the Feds (such as sending out “green notices”.) 😡

Last edited 1 year ago by David⚜️

Perhaps this indictment by Sotomayor will echo in the halls of the American Law Institute (ALI) come March.

Speculation and fear? One wonders were “fear no evil ” comes from? Seems authorities speculate a bit too much. Heck I live right across the street from kids. I’m sure many would like to know what a sex offender is or does America speak no evil.. Seems “Give me liberty or give me death” is a bit one sided in this affair. Guess one reaps what government sow’s even if much of this registry is a play by play angle.. Wonder who’s putting their eggs in one basket with much of this speculation to protect. People don’t even know why they wear a mask today or who is taking a shot of truth serum.

The whole government needs to get their act together in this “vain and blind justice for all. Talk about discrimination. Guess looking for housing or a job is discriminating enough today… One either puts the blame on maime or mission control. Who’s controlling ones interest today with this speculation.

David what does compelled speech mean to you. Would it be standing up for Charles Manson, Jack the ripper or Billionaire Jeffery Epstien. Does tyranny come to mind or are their two sides’ to ever story. Sure truth is good but trusting is better. I don”t even trust in my own self or would I be more astute in trusting in myself. Hey this article is a sort of slap in the face for those involved and if its all about some vain justice than government is so hypocritical in their methods or should we all stand tall and understand reason. Computer or speculation justice is not even justice its more of unethical opinion, Does government need to reevaluate these types of operations.

That’s bullshit that it doesn’t meet the “criteria” for cert. The so-called “justices” simply did not want to do real work in addressing inconvenient truths when it comes to people labeled as “Registered Sex Offenders.”

To the justices: DO YOUR JOB!

It’s literally John Roberts’ and Anthony Kennedy’s fault that sex offender registration is screwed up as it is. Using a Psychology Today statistic from 1986 to uphold registration? GTFO!

Judicial incompetence at its finest.

Can’t believe we all pay taxes to fund this shithole “government.”

Speculation and Fear. Well, that pretty much sums our existence.