Source: ACSOL
The State of Missouri filed its final brief today in the pending federal case that challenges the state’s Halloween sign law. The next step in the litigation process is oral argument before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. No date has yet been set for oral argument, however, the parties must be provided at least 30 days prior notice.
“In its brief, the State of Missouri continues to repeat its claim that the law that requires all registrants to post a sign at their residence on Halloween is not compelled speech,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If that were true, the sign requirement would not violate the First Amendment as ruled by the federal district court last year.”
The federal district court ruled in favor of plaintiff Tommy Sanderson, a registrant, who failed to post a sign on his residence in the year 2023. His decision not to post a sign was based in part upon statements made by law enforcement officials who told him he didn’t have to comply with the law because he was convicted two years before the law became effective.
“Also in its brief, the State of Missouri repeated assertions not based in fact found in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the recidivism rate for registrants is ‘frightening and high,'” stated Bellucci. “That assertion was based upon a marketing statement published in one article in Psychology Today magazine in 1986 and was later discredited.”
The original lawsuit challenging Missouri’s Halloween sign requirement was filed in October 2023 and the district court granted a temporary restraining order stopping enforcement of that law the same month. After motions for summary judgment were filed by both parties, the district court issued a permanent statewide injunction in October 2024 that prohibited future enforcement of that law.
The State of Missouri appealed the district court’s decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2025 and Mr. Sanderson’s brief opposing the appeal was filed the following month. As appellant, the State of Missouri was allowed to file the final brief in the appeal.
Download the brief:
Appeal - AG Reply Brief - March 2025
First, thank you Janice for your continued work on this very important issue.
In the opening intro, this statement is made: “If the “no candy” sign requirement is unconstitutional, then so is the requirement to publicly register… Courts have rejected Sanderson’s compelled-speech argument in that context precisely because public registration does not “require[ ] [a person] (a) to affirm a religious, political, or ideological belief he disagrees with or (b) to be a moving billboard for a governmental ideological message.”
The registry itself is compelled speech. The registry requires a person to sign a form, under penalty of imprisonment if they do not comply, that states they are a [derogatory label] in the present tense. And then the government posts that label and other personal information publicly on a government website and encourages people to seek out that info on that website. I think this absolutely does require a person to affirm a government belief he disagrees with. The form / site does not just say the person committed xyz crime and in what year, it labels them in the present tense. This government message ruins lives and PFRs are forced to agree with it and provide the information for the posting.
Tax dollars at work. My long standing opinion is any gov official who wastes tax dollars should have to personally reimburse the gov.
The first two sentences of this brief are laughable to the point I wonder if the MO AG is actually arguing against registration.
If the “no candy” sign requirement is unconstitutional, then so is the requirement to publicly register.
Absolutely, totally, completely, 100%, could not be more correct. Flag and refer to this point at every single registry challenge case in the future. That it comes from a state attorney general in a federal case purportedly arguing in favor of registration or its associated obligations and restrictions only makes it more compelling.
Courts have rejected Sanderson’s compelled-speech argument in that context precisely because public registration does not “require[ ] [a person] (a) to affirm a religious, political, or ideological belief he disagrees with or (b) to be a moving billboard for a governmental ideological message.” (emphasis added)
Other courts have pointed out that the registry basically says “This person is dangerous – he will sexually assault every single child within 50 miles. Run away from him, screaming. Don’t give him a job or let him live anywhere near you. Watch, scrutinize, and report everything he does.” A sentiment I’m sure every single PFR vehemently disagrees with. That sounds pretty ideological to me. Not to mention the absurdity of the argument that something is not compelled speech solely based on the content of the speech the state/government is compelling.
Indeed, if there is one single person forced to register out of the near-million that would be willing to swear that registration is the only thing keeping him from committing another sex crime, I will print out and eat the entire registry of whatever state that registrant is in.
And I think it bears repeating that even among the small handful of sexual recidivism among PFR, they’re always registry compliant. There is never a concurrent registry violation (RV) charged along with the new offense, as far as I could find. And I’d bet if there is, it’s one discovered during the investigation of the new offense and had absolutely nothing to do the new offense’s commission. RVs are felonies in most states, and no DA would throw out or overlook another felony charge unless it’s stacked (I.e., an additional molestation charge for moving a hand from one body part to another).
Here it is coming up on Easter and I’m thinking about putting one of those gigantic inflatable rabbits in my front yard just to test the waters. I want to see if the local blues will place a “No egg hunts allowed” sign in my front yard.
They want to subjugate every aspect of our lives!