Missouri TRO Challenged by Attorney General

The Attorney General of Missouri has filed a motion for emergency stay that, if granted, would allow the government to enforce a state law that requires registrants in that state to post a sign on the front door of their homes on Halloween.  This motion was filed in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals after business hours on Friday.

According to this motion, the federal district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a statewide Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).  The motion then requests the appellate court either to stop the TRO completely or to limit the TRO to the plaintiff in the case.

“It is unfortunate that the Attorney General has challenged the district court’s decision,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci and lead attorney in the case.  “This challenge, regardless of its outcome, is sure to confuse both registrants and the public regarding whether Halloween signs must be posted.”

The motion for emergency stay repeats many statements made in prior documents filed by the Attorney General, including the fact that the plaintiff decorated his home for Halloween in the past.  This fact is not relevant to the case because that part of the state law is not being challenged.  Instead, the only part of the state law being challenged is the sign requirement.  

According to this motion, the TRO “imposes an extreme burden on Missouri’s sovereignty.”  The motion also states that the TRO “prevents Defendants from ensuring that thousands of children this Halloween do not ring the doorbells of sex offenders.”

“In its motion, the Attorney General fails to acknowledge the potential harm to registrants and their families if required to post a sign on the front door of their homes,” stated Bellucci.  “Consideration of that potential harm was considered by the district court and is essential in this case.”

The Attorney General also asserts in its motion that the TRO poses a threat of irreparable harm to the government and to the public.  Further, the Attorney General asserts that the sign requirement does not violate the First Amendment because it is not compelled speech.  Instead, the sign requirement addresses only conduct similar to the requirement to register.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to complete its review of the Attorney General’s motion on Monday, October 30, and to issue a decision the same day.  Prior to its decision, plaintiff’s counsel will prepare and file a brief opposing the Attorney General’s motion.

Download the Emergency Stay:

Emergency Stay – AG -REVISED

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

If the TRO is upheld I bet none of Misery’s children will be sexually assaulted by a registrant. Besides if the registry is so great why do parents need to see a sign to know what house to avoid, shouldn’t they have all the red dots memorized. Misery’s AG is a putz and a threat to freedom.

Here’s a novel idea, just eliminate the entire damn registry and end all these legal messes completely! Good grief! It’s like these people just have to argue about something and can’t live a fullfilled life if they aren’t making some law for someone else to obey. This crap is pissing me off!

How many of them will be ringing the doorbells of murderers? Or drug addicts?

Can you imagine the confusion if some prankster put those same signs on every house for blocks? The ensuing panic would resemble the Twilight Zone episode The Monsters are Due on Maple Street in which a neighborhood goes berserk trying to figure out who the real invading aliens are. Manufactured hysteria like the registry saves no one, but it’s great for putting money in the pockets of politicians, media and law enforcement members (who would rather bully rehabilitated citizens than endanger themselves going after crimes in progress). Yes. I said that.

Daam how do you even fight against them when they can file motions after business hours on
non-business days when everyone else has to file their motions, Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5pm.
They’re just making sure PFR suffer every day of their lives, I couldn’t imagine having to put a sign like that in my window, I can only imagine the terrorizing fear, stress, and anxiety that would come placing a sign like that in your window.
We are not free I’m in California and I’ll tell you, life on the registry is still Hell on earth, i’m literally a zombie The Walking Dead.
24 years on the registry I remember when California had these same Halloween restrictions I would just take my kids to celebrate, trick-or-treat or pass out candy in my moms neighborhood phuck-um.

Last edited 1 month ago by AERO’S PHO

My first thought is this Attorney General is not very American. And is on a destructive path for his state.
Hopefully the courts see through the dark cloud.

The AG has gotten one thing right. It is no different than when we are forced to register because we are compelled to agree with whatever is written for the all public to see.

I think the AG has further political aspirations and has chosen the most vulnerable population to “climb up on.” His argument is illogical.. ringing a doorbell does not cause injury.

Not seeing a whole lot of difference between the AG’s opposition here and his opposition in the TRO hearing. Same overview of the original offense from forever ago (irrelevant because the there is no dispute that the person is a registrant), same whining about timeliness (irrelevant because there is no procedural timeline). Classic example of bringing the same case to a higher court and hoping for a different result. It’s a little disturbing that the AG doesn’t seem to understand the role of appellate courts.

Notice also that they continually complain of all the Halloweens that this particular registrant participated in over ten years, yet cannot find one single allegation of another sexual assault or attempt of one during the period which these laws supposedly prevent. Nor can they refer to any other sexual assaults or attempts against trick-or-treaters by registrants (or non-registrants, for that matter) to show how critical Missouri’s Halloween statutes supposedly are.

But still, to me, all of this is beside the point. The registry is easily available to parents that are concerned about it. And if they think neighborhood registrants are that dangerous, simply don’t send the kids trick-or-treating. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Also, is it me or has there been A LOT less alarmism about Halloween this year?

I do not understand this:

“Further, the Attorney General asserts that the sign requirement does not violate the First Amendment because it is not compelled speech. Instead, the sign requirement addresses only conduct similar to the requirement to register.”

What does that even mean and how does it completely negate the First Amendment? I hope the judge is smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors of this statement.

He was so confident in his argument he didn’t bring any evidence and when the court disagreed with him he had a tantrum. Get off your pity pot and admit you have no substance except for having a big head.

Does anyone know the number of children in the United States that were sexually assaulted last Halloween after ringing the doorbell of a person convicted of a sexual offense?

MO AG’s Arguments = 😱

(To quote Bill Murray from “Ghostbusters“: “Human sacrifice! Dog and cats living together! Mass hysteria!!


I want to be surprised by this, but I am not. The tactic, saying that the court lacks authority, I find surprising. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I do. I have no doubt the MO would fall all over themselves to demand all recognize this court’s authority to deny this TRO and/or uphold the State law.

Courts decisions are only meaningful and certainly only just if you agree with them. Courts only have the authority yo agree with you, otherwise they are corrupt institutions that force their agendas on the people.

I’d condemn this idea more, but there are limits to my hypocrisy…not many, and usually easily ignored…but there are some.

I think every PFR in that state should post a sign on their doors and in their yards stating exactly what they think of the AG. I know I would.

We have been working all weekend on our legal brief opposing the AG’s motion to stop the TRO granted by the district court. The deadline for filing our brief is today at 10 a.m. (Pacific). Our strongest argument is that the AG filed his motion in the wrong court. This argument is based upon a federal rule that requires parties to file such a motion with the district court, not the appellate court. Of course, there is an exception to that rule but we don’t think the AG has met that exception. Just in case the 8th Circuit doesn’t agree with that argument, we are including several more arguments in our legal brief which will be posted as soon as it is final (about 5 hours from now).

It’s disgusting. I mean, the way they minimize and portray OUR safety and security as “no biggie.” If our house gets burned down as a result of these “minimally intrusive” signs, it’s so sad too bad, right?

Fear mongering, hate mongering and scare mongering is all they have.