Brief Opposing AG Attempt to Block TRO Has Been Filed

Updated 10/30: The 8th circuit upholds TRO!
Click here to read Janice’s Journal about this
 
 
Original article:
 
A brief opposing an attempt by the Attorney General (AG) of Missouri to block a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued last week by a federal district court has been filed.  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to issue a decision later today regarding whether to overturn the TRO.
 
The brief filed today on behalf of plaintiff Thomas Sanderson outlines several mistakes made by the AG, including the filing of an emergency motion with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.  According to the brief, the federal court rules require the AG’s motion to be filed first with the federal district court.  The only exception to that rule is if filing in the federal district court is impracticable.
 
“We believe the Attorney General has failed to prove that filing his motion in the federal district court was impracticable,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci and lead counsel in the case.  “That is one of the many reasons we expect the 8th Circuit to rule against the Attorney General’s motion.”
 
The brief notes that the AG did not object to the issuance of a statewide injunction in his briefing to the federal district court.  Instead, the AG raised that objection for the first time in his motion filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
The brief does not rest solely on that argument.  Instead, the brief also asserts that the proper standard of review for the district court’s decision to grant the TRO is “abuse of discretion” which is difficult to prove.  The brief also supports a finding by the district court that the Halloween sign requirement is compelled speech because it is speech that registrants are required to speak even though they disagree with its message.
 
Because Halloween starts in less than 24 hours, registrants and their families may or may not receive a timely notice from the government that Halloween sign requirements are or are not required to be posted.  Therefore, ACSOL asks every person who learns of the court’s ruling to share that information with others.
 
 
 
 

Download the PDF file .

 
 
 

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

⭐⭐ Many, many thanks to Janice and all who assisted her in preparing and submitting this brief!! ⭐⭐
Janice, your hard work is truly appreciated (not least of all by Missouri registrants, I’m sure!)!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

(Take that, evil MOAG!! 😈)

Last edited 6 months ago by David🔱

Thanks so much to Janice and the ACSOL team for the huge effort made to do this over the weekend to get this brief out in time! This shows how ACSOL is doing all it can with limited resources to fight for justice for registrants.

If you’d like to see ACSOL do even more, please consider making regular contributions, no matter how small. The Donate button is on all the pages.

As always, much appreciation to Janice and ACSOL for their efforts, though I still say it’s a crying shame that such effort needs to be spent on what should be a dead issue.

Shortly after McClendon v. Long was first published, we had one clown assemblyman here in Georgia that attempted to write the sign thing into the statutes. I made it a point to email that whole committee to point out that Long didn’t lose because he lacked statutory authority to force his Halloween signs as falsely claimed by the bill’s author. He lost because his signs were a 1st Amendment violation. A statute requiring the same is every bit as unconstitutional as the whims and fancies of the sheriff, and the state would certainly be burdened with the cost of defending such a statute which cannot possibly prevail.

The bill eventually died in committee. I like to think my email had something to do with it, but cannot know for certain since I never got a reply.

Last edited 6 months ago by Dustin

Wow what a crazy battle, California ACSOL and the attorneys in Missouri ain’t backing down ether, Very impressive. 💥🥊

Many thanks to Janice and Carlton for taking the time to address this important issue, despite the tactics of the AG!