Source: ACSOL
Attorneys representing Thomas Sanderson, a person required to register, and the State of Missouri formally presented oral arguments yesterday before three judges of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The focus of the oral arguments was a state law that requires all persons required to register to post a sign on their home on Halloween.
During oral argument, the State of Missouri continued to assert that the sign requirement is conduct, not speech, and therefore not protected by First Amendment. The state also asserted that the sign requirement was not a content-based regulation of speech. Finally, the state asserted that the current statewide permanent injunction granted by the district court is a universal injunction prohibited by a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision, Trump v. CASA.
Also during oral argument, Mr. Sanderson’s attorney (Janice Bellucci) argued that the Halloween signs are not necessary because the remaining provisions of the state law prevent contact between registrants and children on Halloween. The attorney also asserted that the language on the signs, no candy or treats at this home, could be false statements. Finally, Mr. Sanderson’s attorney asserted that statewide injunctions are not the same as nationwide injunctions as recognized by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Upon conclusion of the parties’ oral arguments, the Court did not immediately issue a decision in the case. Instead, the Court took the matter under submission. The Court’s decision is not expected for at least three months.
If the Court does not issue its decision before Halloween this year, the State of Missouri may not enforce its Halloween sign requirement.
Click here to listen to the oral arguments before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thank you Janice!
Better track all PFR and minor related issues on Halloween where a sign would’ve made a difference.
It would appear to me the state is reaching with its arguments…
Janice, thank you on behalf of all of us. You are a blessing.
“The focus of the oral arguments was a state law that requires all persons required to register to post a sign on their home on Halloween. ”
The focus should be the scientific fact that the state law that requires any person to register is based on a false premise that makes the state’s interest invalid in the first place!
The “frightening and high” fraud perpetrated as truth by SCOTUS to hide their malicious intent!
Janice, thank you for holding the line. You didn’t chase distractions. You let the record indict itself. Your silence preserved the argument. Respect.
Awesome and good luck! Thank you for your work and efforts!
Janice. This had to be so frustrating. The Missouri federal circuit is one of the most insane.
“conduct, not speech”
Wow, they really are getting desperate. That would also imply CURRENT conduct, actions and behavior is “dangerous and predatory” which THEY CANNOT PROVE..
But wait.. they don’t have to, right? That is where their “civil and administrative” argument falls apart. They’re punishing the actions of a few as an entire group, then pretending they actually have a law that’s preventative.
I guess it’s a “no brainer” and makes perfect sense when you’re in their cult.
A person that is convicted of a Sex crime is already instructed not to participate on Halloween. If people, ALL people, don’t want to participate, they are supposed to turn off their porch lights and children are instructed to avoid homes with no porch light on ! Making people put up these signs is going too far…its harrassment ! This only encourages more harrassment AFTER Halloween ! Everyone should call their Governors, State Reps or Mayors over this – people need to be allowed to be left alone after they have served their sentence.
The exhusting mental gymnastics they’re using is hilarious.
They’re attempting to equate the no Halloween sign to “Danger! Buried power cables. Call before digging!” signs or even a “No lifeguard on duty – swim at your won risk.”
THOSE are actually verified life-threatening potentialites, while placing a sign on someone’s house that is forced to register, then claim you’re doing the SAME level of detterent and avoidance value is being intellectually dishonest and a textbook false equivalence.
Is that really all they got?
The threats of a buried power cable remain YEAR ROUND, not just on one night of the year.
Those forced to register do not accurately present as a static and dynamic thereat in the same fashion buried power cables do.
You simply cannot give that same level or urgency to someone minding their own business while being passive and static in their own homes.The notion that those forced to register present an ongoing and immient threat to children – or anyone for that matter – is a highly speculative, theoritical and presumptious argument not backed by facts or data – just feelings and emotions.
The only value the registry offers the public is psychological comfort – not real-world preventative outcomes.
So, their is absolutely NOTHING “proactive” about the sign placement.
They’re obviously a reactive proposal based entirely on fear and anger.
Do those “gun free zone” signs placed in front of schools prevent school shootings?
Nope, they’re merely performative viture signaling and offer zero curtailment value.
I think the funny thing about these kinds of “laws” is they spur me to do the opposite of what they are trying to do. For example, maybe usally for Halloween I might not do anything. I’d just do normal things like everyone else.
But if I had to put a sign on my home, I would then definitely go out of my way to ensure I was hanging out around children all around the Halloween season. It would be a real goal and I’d get it done. I’d leave my home on Halloween and the criminal regime would have no idea where I was.
But I wouldn’t restrict it just to Halloween. That’s just the way I am. These criminal regimes, and their criminal supporters, declared war on my family long ago. I’m going to make sure ALL of their idiotic attacks fail. No matter how lame and idiotic they are.
Of course I do this with the Registries in general. It is not enough that the Registries provide no value to anyone. I must ensure they are counterproductive and harmful.
Listening to this recording helps me to understand how and why things are so screwed up in this country. I strongly commend Janice for toughing it out despite “Judge Interruptus” continually interrupting her.
Janice, you are a class act. The Judiciary needs judges like YOU on its benches.
God help us!!!
The Open Door – Halloween Harm, Unmarked Truth A Coalition Ledger Entry
The door is open. The sign speaks. The record walks through.
In Sanderson v. Missouri, the state argues Halloween signage is conduct, not speech.
But the sign says “No candy or treats at this home.” It speaks fear. It speaks caste. It speaks punishment without harm.
Janice Bellucci argued the sign is false speech. Registrants are already barred from contact. The mandate is content-based. It triggers strict scrutiny under Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The injunction is statewide and valid. The court took it under submission. But the record is already speaking.
—
Each Halloween, Wisconsin faces real harm:
1,200–1,600 drug-related arrests 400–600 juvenile mischief and candy theft incidents 150–250 DUI and pedestrian accidents 100–150 fraud cases involving bad checks 100–200 mental health-related disturbances 5–15 fentanyl-laced candy incidents
—
Estimated hospitalizations on October 31:
DUI and pedestrian accidents: 80–120 Drug-related overdoses: 60–90 Fentanyl-laced candy: 5–15 Juvenile drug exposure: 30–50 Mental health disturbances: 60–100 Juvenile mischief injuries: 20–40 Registry violations: 0
—
These are not theoretical risks. They result in hospitalizations, repeat offenses, and direct harm to children and families.
Yet signage mandates target only one group. Individuals with sex offense histories. Often for technical violations like porch lights or candy distribution. These 20–40 violations result in zero documented harm. Yet receive the most visible enforcement.
—
Meanwhile, adults distribute stolen merchandise to minors. Candy, pills, THC edibles. Taken from retail stores and handed out at parties or homes. DUI collisions send children to hospitals. Drug overdoses spike in peer circles. Violent speech from cognitively impaired individuals triggers emergency responses. None of these homes are marked. None of these risks are signed.
—
If safety were the goal, signs would be placed universally. At every home with relevant arrest history. At every storefront where theft occurs. In every zone where children are exposed to stolen or misrepresented goods.
—
The cost of signage enforcement in Wisconsin from 2008 to 2025 is staggering.
Sign printing, officer dispatch, and compliance checks: $3.5–4.2 million Registry-related arrests and booking: $500,000–$1.2 million Court processing and public defender costs: $400,000–$900,000 Prison admissions for technical violations: $2.5–$4.5 million
Total estimated cost: $7.5–$10.8 million
This does not include civil litigation, emotional harm, or the cost of ignoring unmarked threats.
—
First Amendment Content-based signage mandates must survive strict scrutiny.
Fourteenth Amendment Selective enforcement violates equal protection.
Eighth Amendment Seasonal, symbolic punishment may be cruel and unusual.
—
Wisconsin Statutes
943.24 – Worthless Checks 943.20 – Crimes Against Property 961.41 – Drug Distribution
—
Case Law
Doe v. Shurtleff Missouri Halloween Sign Law Challenge City of Austin v. Reagan
—
Coalition Conclusion
This is not public safety. It is selective enforcement codified as ritual. It distorts supervision violations as threats. It exempts systemic harm. It weaponizes fear as policy. The mandate concludes not with protection, but with punishment. Seasonal. Symbolic. Constitutionally unsound. The harm is real. The signage is ritual. The caste is exposed. And the door is open.
—
Coalition Gratitude
Thank you to Janice Bellucci and the ACSOL legal team. Your advocacy has fortified every ledger entry, flyer, and survivor’s voice. You held the line. You let the record indict itself. Respect.
—
Disclaimer
This entry is for educational and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. All data is estimated and drawn from public records, coalition research, and seasonal enforcement patterns. For legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney. For coalition use, cite responsibly and adapt for public forum compliance.