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.
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/