Government Files Brief in Pending SORNA Challenge

Source: ACSOL

The federal government has filed a brief in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation in November 2024.  The government brief includes a cross motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs in the case, including ACSOL, have an opportunity to file a reply to the government’s brief no later than February 16, 2025.

The focus of this case are SORNA regulations that became effective in January 2022.  A lawsuit challenging the regulations was filed  in October 2022.

“One important change in this case is that there is a new hearing date of April 28 for the court to hear oral arguments on the parties’ motions for summary judgment,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  Oral argument will be held in U.S. District Court, Riverside, Courtroom 1, before Judge Bernal.

Motion for Summary Judgment - Govt - Jan 2025

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m lost. What was the original case about? Not sure if I was even on the registry yet, and THAT has been 10 yrs. 🤔 This is turning into a bad divorce case…..🤣

Typical government response. Unless you are arrested you lack standing so you need to
risk 10 years in federal prison to obtain standing and then hope you win your case after the arrest.

I’ve not read this, yet, but we could’ve expected this coming from them all things considered. Let’s see what can be sent back that way for a reply in three weeks…

Wow. There is a multitude of obfuscation with this federal gov’t brief. And they’re relying on the same method of states increasing penalties on registrants because the Smith v Doe (2003) decision said it was okay. But we know states show that newer registry laws are punitive compared to their original design, see MI and PA cases.

The fed gov’t is trying to confuse the judge(s) of what the old SORNA described was a post-conviction relief with a specific pardon description. Under the old SORNA law, a 1203.4 (case dismissal) was accepted by the federal government to remove one from the registry. The new SORNA law would not recognize that practice any longer. Again, the fed gov’t is using obfuscation in hopes the judge(s) can be swayed with honey than know the truth.

Finally, does the fed gov’t know that since the registry was considered a regulatory scheme under Smith v Doe (2003) that it can be applied retroactively? Thus, every escapee from the registry can be put back onto the registry. And this becomes very true should a CA escapee decides to move to a different state and that new jurisdiction can put the escapee back onto the registry because the new SORNA laws. The new SORNA laws will essentially make ever CA escapee a prisoner of CA since their relief is not recognized federally; hence, restricting freedom of movement under threat of authority. That is punitive.