The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its pending case that challenges current federal SORNA regulations. The U.S. Department of Justice is required to file its opposing brief to this motion no later than December 23. The PLF will have a final opportunity to support its motion in a response due no later than January 24, 2025. A hearing on the motion is scheduled to be held on March 10, 2025.
In its motion, the PLF argued that the SORNA regulations are unconstitutional because they violate registrants’ due process rights, chill free expression, create a presumption of registrants’ guilt for failure to comply with the regulations as well as violate the separation of powers. If the motion is ultimately granted, the court could extend the existing preliminary injunction that applies only to registrants in California to registrants nationwide.
“ACSOL appreciates the continued efforts of the Pacific Legal Foundation to protect the rights of registrants,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
The SORNA regulations now being challenged took effect on January 7, 2022. The Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amended complaint challenging the regulations on October 11, 2022.
An important issue in this case is the definition of the term “sex offender.” The federal government has argued that the definition of this term includes every person convicted of a sex offense even if they are no longer required to register. The PLF has opposed and continues to oppose that definition.
It all looks very impressive! May the Motion for Summary Judgement pass.
Excellent!! I’m so glad the Pacific Legal Foundation continues to wage this war against the Federal SORNA Rules that place so many of us at risk simply because we cannot comply with the requirements (even if we wished to do so!)
Thank you, PLF!!! 😃🤗👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Sic’em Janice, et al!
If the judge doesn’t rule in our favor, they’re biased. It’s really that simple I’m afraid.
What exactly would be the repurcussions of this? Is this strictly affecting people who have finished their time on the registry? Would this have any effect on state registries?
Great job here team. So many well written arguments. I was thinking about the 1st amendment argument in a different light. Does it chill free speech when posting online (assuming you post using your real name) knowing that anyone can look you up and see a picture of you, your current address, work location, your offense, etc? Absolutely, it does. Sure, other people have public records online, but not like the registry. At least not compelled like the registry. I know people might say, well you are just ashamed of what you did and don’t want to be mocked in town square. Well, yes, that is true. But there is also the safety aspect. I don’t feel safe if i say something controversial online because the next post will be doxxing me and my family. This is because the registry is public and used outside the scope of public safety. Just my thoughts on this topic.
I did enjoy the fact that the lawsuit specifically identifies that SORNA delegated the process of who’s on the registry to the states. Then trying to dictate to the states who’s on the registry reveals the conflict of who’s in charge with the registry. Without the states providing said info, then SORNA would have no info.
SORNA gets its information through the states. Each state has its own registry requirements to be on the registry as well as be off the registry. The federal gov’t telling the state gov’t that the person they removed from the registry and is no longer convicted of a crime must remain on the registry and still be recognized as a convicted of a crime. Imagine expanding that thought to all crimes beyond sex crimes – that will not go well.
The SORNA scenario does sound judicially farcical. Which is why PLF brought this suit with examples of such, especially with ACSOL community possessing many individuals under the same circumstances – no longer convicted and no longer on the registry. California cannot do what is not possible, which is to force someone to register who is no longer on the registry.
On a tangent, I am very interested in the recognition of who is no longer convicted aspect should PLF win the case as a Californian.
I wonder what, if any, effect the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the “Chevron doctrine” last summer will have on this case?
AWESOME WORK! THANK YOU!
Anyone really know the Cost involved in keeping the registry at this time? Consider the cost in Monitoring all registrants across the country Compliance checks, Halloween registration officers court cost to prosecutor’s to enforce the violations and the probation officers all the added expense that SORNA creates and the tax payers pay for I am saying the cost must be into the Billion’s and for what to make some politicians look good just my thoughts!
I’m also an expunged/Certificate of Rehab/no longer registering 3 plus years. What, I’ll register again for? I’m back working in my profession and it’s been 20 years!
I finally got my eyes on the doc filed here and am positively amazed at the flurry of verbal and legal punches thrown at the matter by those who know best. I truly hope they land with the intended impact to get the judge to see the reality of the situation here and opine in a way that is best for those who are negatively impacted by the law.
One thing caught my eye in the reading that I think can be argued in every matter as time goes when more and more is revealed about the lack of full consideration of matters before they are passed into law:
“In assessing whether a rule is arbitrary and capricious, a court looks at whether the agency “examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for [its] decision, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Transp. Div. of the Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transp. Workers v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 988 F.3d 1170, 1182 (9th Cir. 2021). An agency action is arbitrary and capricious “if the agency . . .entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” or if the agency “offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Defs. of Wildlife v. Zinke, 856 F.3d 1248, 1257 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Does anyone at these agencies/depts/offices or in the halls of Congress/Legislatures fully present both sides of the argument before deciding their action? I doubt it because of an agenda and those finding problems for a predetermined solution they want to put into place for their agenda (or the fear of losing political cred). This entire case is the same situation to which I hope the Judge sees with the data of today that has been presented and overcomes the opposition who want it to remain the same.
I will say this, change had taken place! We were banned from parks! Beaches! I was on the registry! Had this site not existed, I would still be on the registry! I slipped a COR in about 2 years ago and I’ve resumed my career as a Healthcare Professional! So, I suggest supporting the site! Donate! Again, had I not called Janice one day/got info from a past COR recipient/just before the new law, I would now be online!!