SORNA Case Update: Hearing Set For June 5

There is an update in the pending case challenging the SORNA regulations.  The federal government has withdrawn its appeal of the Preliminary Injunction, however, the federal government is continuing to pursue a motion to dismiss the case.  

Although both the federal government and the plaintiffs have waived oral argument regarding that motion, the judge has scheduled a hearing on that motion during which oral argument may be required for June 5 at 9 a.m.  Plaintiffs are required to file their brief opposing the motion to dismiss no later than April 27.  Defendants are required to file their reply brief no later than May 18.

During the time the motion to dismiss is pending, the Preliminary Injunction will continue to be enforced.  That injunction, which is limited to registrants who currently reside in California, prohibits the federal government from enforcing the SORNA regulations in that state.



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
  19. 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.
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

I am just curious what everyone else feels about this. Do you feel strongly that we will prevail and the case will stand, or should we be worried that the judge will toss the case. Also, if we win once again, who is to say the Federal Government won’t appeal and get another court. It just seems like this is a tennis match. Back and forth, back and forth. Does it ever really end?

I’m glad to hear that it’s moving forward. That’s very good news. And I can certainly understand why the federal government wanted to waive oral arguments in the upcoming June 5th hearing – at the last hearing, the government’s attorney was awful, unable to answer the judge’s questions and presenting arguments which the judge himself easily picked apart.
I hope this hearing will also be available via video link. The last one was very enjoyable to watch!

This case is about the “Chevron doctrine” and is directly related to the arguments against the Federal SORNA Rules:

The massive Supreme Court case you’ve probably never heard of