PLF Files Two Motions in SORNA Regulations Case

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) this week filed two motions in the pending federal lawsuit challenging SORNA regulations that became effective earlier this year.  One of those motions asked the court to approve the use of pseudonyms for four individuals identified as John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3 and John Doe #4.  The court granted that motion one day after it was filed.

The second motion is a request for preliminary injunction which would, if granted, stop enforcement of some SORNA regulations.  A hearing for this motion has been set for December 5 at 9 a.m. (Pacific) in Department 1 of the federal courthouse located at 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA.  The hearing is open to the public and it will be possible to view the hearing online.

This is the second time a request for preliminary injunction has been filed in this case.  A hearing regarding that request was held on September 26 and during that hearing the court denied the motion due to lack of standing for the lone individuals named as a plaintiff.  During the same hearing, the judge granted PLF leave to amend the complaint and an amended complaint, that includes four individual plaintiffs as well as ACSOL, was filed on October 11.  

 

 

Download the PDF file .

 

Download the PDF file .

 

Download the PDF file .

 

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Again I say to advocates. The best candidates for constitutional challenges are them in cases which state does not have a signed standard waiver of civil right in their possession. It is the standardized waiver which removes standing to review complaints against state actions after conviction. This is why states and courts insist upon their use by way of plea bargain in every case. See Connecticut’s DPS V Doh 9-0 decision. When states do not have in the record an intelligently signed waiver defendant does have standing to complain, guilty or not. See Kentucky v Pedilla.

Rest assured, PLF knows exactly what they’re doing.

JANICE,

This posting incorrectly states that the scheduled hearing in Federal court may be viewed ‘live’ online. Unless something has changed recently, it is my understanding that cameras are not allowed in courtrooms in Federal court. While cameras are often permitted in county courthouses which would facilitate a ‘live online broadcast’, the same is not true for Federal court hearings/trials. I am assuming someone in your office posted this announcement and this is a simple oversight on their part.

If the motion is granted in favor of the Doe’s in this case, what registration laws would change throughout the country?

The court has delayed the Dec. 5 hearing to Dec. 21, just in time for Christmas.

https://all4consolaws.org/2022/11/sorna-regulations-hearing-delayed-until-december-21/