The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals today scheduled oral argument in the Missouri Halloween sign case. The argument will take place on Tuesday, September 16, on the 28th floor of the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse located at 111 S. 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri. The Court scheduled oral argument in a total of five cases that day beginning at 9 a.m. The Halloween sign case is listed as the second of those cases.
The district court judge in this case issued a permanent statewide injunction on October 2, 2024, prohibiting the State of Missouri from enforcing a state law that required everyone required to register to a post on their home on Halloween. The basis of the successful challenge was that the sign requirement is speech compelled by the government and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
In its appellate briefs, the State of Missouri has repeated its trial court argument that the Halloween sign requirement is not compelled speech, but instead is incidental to conduct required or prohibited in the remaining portions of a state law. The remaining portions, which have not been challenged, require registrants to turn off the lights outside their homes on Halloween and prohibit registrants from giving candy to children who are trick-or-treating.
The State of Missouri has asked the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to completely reverse the injunction issued by the trial court. Or in the alternative, to limit the injunction to one person, the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals previously denied a request on October 27, 2023, by the State of Missouri to halt a temporary restraining order issued by the trial court. The trial court subsequently issued a preliminary injunction before trial which took place on June 20, 2024.
Download the appeal brief:
Appeal - Sanderson's Brief - CONFORMED
Download the reply brief:
Appeal - AG Reply Brief - March 2025
Janice we are behind you and sending good vibes for a W! I just donated to help cover expenses for this case and others and hope everyone on this forum can chip in what they can, as able. Thank you, Janice.
In Missouri, while individuals may post signs on their own property under First Amendment protections, using public registry data to target a specific PFR especially by name or address—can cross into criminal conduct. Posting such signs on another’s property constitutes trespassing (§ 569.140), and signs that harass, intimidate, or incite fear may violate harassment (§ 565.090) or stalking (§ 565.225) statutes. Courts have ruled that compelled or retaliatory signage targeting registrants infringes on constitutional rights, including free speech and protection from cruel or unusual punishment. Violators may face misdemeanor or felony charges, civil liability for defamation or invasion of privacy, and potential restraining orders. These laws on harassment are written in plain English—but they seem to vanish when someone shows up with a badge or a grudge and says, “Don’t you know who I am? Get names record the person if legal.in some states it may not be. One-Party Consent State: Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402) allows recording conversations if at least one-party consents. If you’re part of the interaction, you count as the consenting party
And if you’re ever forced by law enforcement to place such a sign yourself, you could—just a thought—file a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional rights. It may work. Always consult legal counsel.
Missouri courts have already ruled against compelled signage. In Doe v. Keathley, a federal judge issued a permanent statewide injunction in 2024 prohibiting the state from enforcing its Halloween sign law, finding it to be unconstitutional compelled speech. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on September 16, 2025, but the injunction remains in effect. Always remain calm when encountered and get any or all information.
Missouri law still requires registrants to turn off exterior lights on Halloween, even after a federal judge issued a permanent statewide injunction in Doe v. Keathley (Oct. 2, 2024) prohibiting the state from enforcing its Halloween sign law. While the sign requirement was struck down as unconstitutional compelled speech, the lighting mandate remains in effect and unchallenged.
But darkness isn’t neutral—it’s dangerous. Low visibility during nighttime events increases the risk of accidents, misidentification, and vulnerability to harassment or assault. Poor lighting impairs the ability to monitor surroundings, deters emergency response, and creates conditions ripe for vigilantism. For registrants already subject to stigma and surveillance, forced darkness is not protection—it’s exposure.
It’s not just unconstitutional—it’s unsafe. Visitors may trip, vehicles may misjudge driveways, and registrants may be unable to document threats or trespassers. If compelled darkness leads to injury, intimidation, or property damage, it may support claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of civil rights—especially when enforced selectively or with retaliatory intent.
And if law enforcement pressures you to comply under threat, document everything. Missouri is a one-party consent state under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402, meaning you may legally record the interaction if you are a party to it. You do not need the officer’s permission.
Am I the only one who finds this interesting:
This Missouri case is predicated upon the Haloween Signs being Government compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment;
And yet,
In California, under Special Conditions of Parole for 290’s, Condition #13 states:
“You shall inform all persons with whom you have a significant relationship; e.g., dating and/or roommate(s), about your criminal history…”
Is this not ALSO Government Compelled Speech in violation of the First Amendment?
Yes, of course it is, but it seems California is above the Constitution, since I spent 45 days in county jail for accessing Social Media – despite SCOTUS’s ruling in Packingham v N.Carolina 582 U.S. 98 (2017).
-Just sayin’.