MO: Trial Date Delayed for Missouri Halloween Sign Case

Source: ACSOL

A federal district court has agreed to delay the trial date in the pending case that challenges a Halloween sign requirement in the state of Missouri.  Originally the trial was to begin on March 27, however, the court has agreed to delay that date until June 20.

The court’s decision to delay the trial date was made after the plaintiff filed a motion for that delay.  The request was made, in part, after the Attorney General sent more than 800 pages of documents and videos to plaintiff’s counsel about 30 days before trial.  The Attorney General also identified for the first time about a dozen witnesses including a proposed expert who is expected to refute academic and government reports stating that registrants are unlikely to commit a new sex offense on Halloween.

According to the court, the trial will last a maximum of two days during which testimony will be heard and legal arguments will be made.  The basis of the litigation is that the Missouri state law that requires registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween violates the First Amendment because it is compelled speech.

The trial court judge in this case issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in October 2023.  The TRO remains in effect throughout the trial and the TRO could be extended into a permanent injunction after the trial.

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 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The delayed trial date is a BIG win for the registrant community. The Attorney General argued strongly that the state of Missouri would be harmed if the judge agreed to the delay. And the judge did it anyway! What the AG forgot was that the judge had ruled months ago that a Temporary Restraining Order that prevents the AG from enforcing the Halloween sign requirement law would not harm the public. I expect it is the same message that the judge will use when he grants a permanent injunction after the trial is over.

The heavy handedness of the MO state govt doing what they do best, which is inundate as best they can by being a bully here with an overload of info.

I’d like to see the 800 pages and videos the AG sent. And what does anyone want to bet their supposed “expert” is just some advocate from the NCMEC or something similar, whose “expertise” is mastery of repeating the (likely fabricated) statistics routinely published by like-minded organizations (which increase every year despite their so-called efforts)?

And don’t be surprised if the AG drops another 800 pages at the end of May.

800 pages of debunked claims, fear mongering and straw-grasping.

I wonder just who this “expert” is who can refute reams of government and academic data. If nothing else, where will s/he find the data showing any sort of aberrance on Halloween? (We all know there is none.)

MO and its AG may end up shooting itself in the foot and drag other jurisdictions with it.