A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed in the pending challenge to SORNA regulations that became effective in January 2022. The motion was filed on June 3 by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) in federal district court. The motion requests a hearing date of July 18. If that request is granted, the hearing will take place in Riverside county.
“The Pacific Legal Foundation is to be commended for filing this important motion,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If the motion is granted, it could stop the enforcement of SORNA regulations for registrants throughout the nation.”
According to the motion, the SORNA regulations at issue are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff John Doe and to ACSOL members. For example, the regulation’s requirement that registrants provide all remote communication identifiers impermissibly burdens speech. The motion argues that the plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed on the merits.
The original lawsuit was filed by PLF on May 23, 2022, in U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The case has been assigned to Judge Jesus Bernal who previously ruled in favor of registrants in a case challenging presence restrictions in the City of Adelanto and against registrants in a case challenging presence restrictions in the City of Ontario.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction June 2022.pdf
So if it succeeds on the internet identifiers, will that be applicable to state levels since this a federal motion? Haultng all states from demanding and prosectuting on Internet identifiers?
Go get’em and give that attorney general both barrels of legal justice in the face! And when you’re done take pictures of it for everyone to see!
Very Nice! Good Luck!
If John Doe was convicted of a misdemeanor, meaning he was convicted of a crime for which he could be sentenced to less than a year in jail, would he not be a Tier I under federal SORNA? If so, that was years ago, more than 10 years, he he would not have to register? He was convicted of failure to register so that would mean 15 years registration max? Or is failure to register considered a sex offense federal SORNA.
This almost worries me. I wonder: did he first rule for registrants, and then later, in a different case, rule against registrants? Did he “feel the heat” from ruling for registrants, so is he now bowing to public sentiment (something a judge should NEVER do!)?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Thank you, Janice, ACSOL, PFL, and all for doing this. May God give you favor!
Can someone with more knowledge of Sorna, help me with their opinion?
I was convicted of a misdemeanor 647.6 over 20 years ago. Successful probation, no failures to register, no other crimes since. I’m no longer a registrant, thankfully, having obtained an expungement and COR.
Would I be required to go back on under the new Sorna regulations? Aren’t misdemeanor’s tier I, which would mean 15 years max and therefore, I wouldn’t be affected by this since my crime was more than 20 years ago?
I’m concerned because John Doe’s situation seems errily similar to mine, Misdemeanor, 20+ years ago, expungement, COR. Why would he be required to go back on?
Also, how is one to know whether they’re supposed to start registering again? I’ve not received anything from the DOJ, who I assume would notify me of the requirement?
If someone could help with their opinions on this, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
This is a significant question that the PLF asks! This is especially so given the outcome of MI cases, which necessitates a 4th complaint on behalf of registrants, primarily a result of MI congressional inaction to the first three federal complaints & subsequent rulings. All of which implicates an onerous breakdown of authority. Make no mistake about it, Smith V Doe has lead to an avalanche of both state and federal applications of ex post laws upon the already convicted sex offender. Simply put, we have and are compelled to live with an unchecked government.
When ACSOL responded to the proposed regulations during the public comments period last year, I believe the DOJ responded to that.
In layman’s language, for us non-lawyers, what was the DOJ’s argument that it is within the law for them to do this? The ACSOL motion for the prelim injunction is so compelling. I’m trying to understand how the DOJ can even justify this.