As an advocate and litigator, I often compare my efforts to restore the civil rights of registrants to climbing up a steep mountain. Unfortunately, the mountain I must now climb is steeper due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued a few days ago.
In that decision, a majority of the Court’s nine justices overturned relief granted by district court judges in three different but related cases. In those cases, each district court ruled that an Executive Order could not be enforced after it was challenged as unconstitutional.
The district courts did not issue a final decision in those cases. Instead, the courts temporarily paused enforcement of the Executive Order during the time the parties first prepared, then presented evidence in those cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court sharply criticized the decisions of the three district courts to pause enforcement of the Executive Order as “universal injunctions” that could and should be applied only to parties in the case, not to everyone affected by that Order. This ruling is ominous and could significantly block future efforts to restore the civil rights of those required to register because it could require hundreds if not thousands of registrants to file individual lawsuits.
In the first known argument attempting to apply the U.S. Supreme Court decision to a case involving the civil rights of registrants, the Attorney General of Missouri today filed a supplemental brief in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that brief, the Attorney General criticized the district court because it “issued a universal injunction applying to ‘all registered sex offenders’ subject (to) the challenged law, not just to Mr. Sanderson (the sole plaintiff).” The Attorney General then requested that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal vacate the district court’s injunction. The 8th Circuit has not yet scheduled an oral argument in this case and cannot issue its decision until that has occurred.
The next potential application of the U.S. Supreme Court decision could take place in about two weeks during a district court hearing scheduled to be held in California on July 14. The judge in that case has granted a statewide injunction that prevents SORNA regulations from being enforced against all California registrants. If the new Supreme Court decision is applied in that case, the injunction could be limited to the plaintiffs in that case and as a result, the SORNA regulations could be applied to more than 100,000 additional registrants.
All is not lost. It is not time to panic. Instead, it is time to regroup and determine what new gear and supplies are needed to climb this steeper mountain. I look forward to meeting you at, or at least reporting from, its summit.
Click here to download the Attorney General of Missouri filing
Supplemental Filing - June 2025
Class action status or membership class status will work to cover more than just individual plaintiffs.
From what I understand of this ruling is that it can’t be national but it can be for the state where the suit was filled. I couldn’t imagine a district judge would be limited even beyond that. It would be impossible to manage for both the plaintiffs and the people if every case has to be brought individually. The people can’t even keep up with the current case loads, let alone multiplying that by tens of thousands.
Dear Janice, this is disappointing to say the least. If an order or law is unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional, period. With this decision, essentially nothing is unconstitutional now if every single person has to file suit for relief. Is there possibility for a class action type suit?
Thank you for your continued perseverance climbing that mountain and carrying us all with you.
For us Californians, there is no place for us to register for SORNA. And we have already been granted relief from registration requirements in this state! Under Sb 384 and Judge Bernals preliminary injunction.Wouldn’t that also violate the separation of powers clause in the constitution? Also didn’t Judge Bernal already declare this SORNA requirement was invalid because it violated due process and the First Amendment. It doesn’t make any sense to reverse that order.
Thank you for fighting for us
So, when a law is passed, it affects everyone going forward, but when a judgement is passed concerning the unconstitutionality of a law, the judgement only affects the plaintiff and no one else even though everyone else is under the unconstitutionality of that same law and each person has to file for individual judgement and relief.
That can’t be right.
It was my understanding that the decision applied to executive orders, not unconstitutional acts of Congress.
To my knowledge, either Bondi or the Press Sec said this was not retroactive. The court of appeals can toss the Missouri case and it will stand.
Another is ONLY nationwide. Judges can stand on the whole state. The Pacific case is over in hopes for a national ruling though.
The other factor, which has been fully mentioned by Trump, is the restored Republic, which would negate the registry in it’s entirety, because the law would become invalid. (The states might be able to do what they like, however)
There is still hope. This ruling is a grand show, only, to halt immigration Judge-activists from keeping illegals here.
We cannot thank you and ASCOL for fighting for fairness for us
Thank-you for your continued fight for us ! You will never know how grateful I am xoxo
Courts use precedent all the time to make decisions, regardless of the state perspective so what is MO’s beef with letting things stand as they are? No signs on Halloween. Not like a sign changes anything as we have signs that say no Uturn yet Uturns occur at the sign. The days of trick or treat in the neighborhood has evolved to trunk or treat which is usually safer. We need laws that make sense and this is not one of them in my humble opinion.
Trust me. It’s not the steepness, it’s the length.
Not a lawyer. But from what I understand Justice Kavanaugh added a foot note in the decision allowing injunctions in situations in which the APA rules apply. Since this is an agency action, not an executive order nor an act of congress, this would apply as there is a specific mechanism to allow these types of nationwide injunctions even if it’s not a class action.
Section 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) outlines the standards by which a reviewing court must set aside agency action. It specifies that a court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action that is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. This section also includes other grounds for setting aside agency action, such as those that are unconstitutional, exceed statutory authority, violate procedures required by law, or are unsupported by substantial evidence in rule making or on the record of an adjudication.
I hope I’m right but again I’m not a lawyer.
I always said elections have consequences, and I never bought into the mantra that there’s no difference between the two parties regarding registrant issues. All the Trump appointees voted against the universal injunctions, and all the Obama & Biden appointees voted for the universal injunctions. So there you go folks
The question I have is what do we do in the meantime – especially for us Californians living in a state that does not accommodate with SORNA?
I literally have no idea what all this means. Can someone explain in laymen’s terms what the upcoming CA decision means for CA registrants?
SAW THIS COMING. Next step by this admin will be to make all offenses lifetime registration under SORNA. this will basically negate any state laws and is the next step to a complete fascist takeover of the government.
What if our registration time has ENDED under SORNA? Example: Tier 1 -15 years or Tier 2 – 25 years? Then I would strongly assume it wouldn’t matter if SORNA came to California. SORNA would simply not apply to those whose registration time has come and gone.
Now we’ll have more to protest in front of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts, you are now in the club of being the worst chief Justice in history.
so Im confused a bit, Judge Bernal issued a judgment saying that it is ridiculous for anyone who is not required to register to report their travel or have a marked passport, so does this mean the supreme court is about to overrride his decision and instill SORNA even though CA doesnt abide by SORNA rules and only requires 10 year registration?
if so how can I register when I cant and how do I report my travel if im not a registrant anymore in 8 years?
Janice makes good points, and we should be vigilante about the SCOTUS ruling on injunctions. However, new SORNA has been in place for years, and it’s proven itself to be a paper tiger outside of California. Has anyone really been prosecuted under it? My state doesn’t require Internet IDs and registering in person for my tier level. I even asked Mass SORB about reporting out of state travel, and they said they don’t want that info even if I gave it to them. So I wouldn’t worry about the feds, but I still have to satisfy Wisconsin. I’ve been gone from that state for almost 3 years, and I still have to report my Internet identifiers to those cheeseheads!
As I have said for a years, this is why a class action suit all registered citizens vs the United States is the only way this b*ll cr*p will ever end. Everything else is merely a ping pong game.