Source: courthousenews.com 9/16/25
Missouri is trying to revive a mandate for sex offenders to post a sign on Halloween stating they don’t have candy or treats at their residence after the law was blocked last October.
ST. LOUIS (CN) — An Eighth Circuit judge compared a Missouri law requiring sex offenders to post signs on Halloween saying they don’t have candy to a North Dakota law requiring landowners to post signs warning if there is quicksand on their property during a hearing Tuesday challenging the sign law’s constitutionality.
“In North Dakota, if there is quicksand, we’re required to post it,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, said during the 30-minute hearing. “Obviously the cattle don’t understand it’s quicksand. But you know, in theory, somebody wandering up, they see it’s there, and no one has ever asserted that that’s being too compelled (of speech).”
The analogy hit at the heart of the arguments as Missouri attempted to revive the sign requirement after a lower court blocked it last October, stating that it violated the First Amendment guarantee of speech by compelling sex offenders to post the sign on their private property.
The lower court’s statewide injunction came as result of a 2023 lawsuit filed by Thomas Sanderson, a convicted sex offender.
“This requirement is not requiring the sex offender to disclose the fact that they are a sex offender,” William Seidleck of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office told the three-judge panel. “That makes this the least restrictive means for a sign such as this.”
Sanderson’s attorney, Janice Bellucci, pushed back on that idea, pointing out that all sex offenders and their addresses are available for the public on a website.
“If a family is concerned about going to the home of somebody who’s required to register, all they have to do is look at this public website, and they’ll know ahead of time where a person who is required to register lives,” said Bellucci, who’s based in Sacramento, California. “The other thing is for law enforcement, it’s not necessary for them either, because they already have this information in a government database.”
Bellucci cited an earlier ruling from…
I don’t think the commercial building code requirement of having exit signs at exits has anything to do with compelled private residential property signs on Halloween. The law literally requires a person to write the sign verbatim and post it on their door for the evening. That’s compelled.
Actually, the ironic thing is that if Missouri passed a residential building code law that mandated exit signs on all exterior doors, the same AG office would be arguing that the state is compelling speech by doing that.
After listening to a major portion of the oral argument, one of the more outspoken judges was already siding with the state of missouri and frequently rudely interrupted Janice.
A good point not brought up among all the other good points Janice made is. that there is no increase of child molestations, rapes, etc. during trick or treat than any other night, but we can’t be sure if even that would have made a difference.
I don’t believe the hearing was unbiased.
In a park, on the top of a slide—if I jump, will it hurt? Well, It did. And yes, it hurt. Truth! The story of pain is in the facts, not the fear. Missouri’s Halloween sign law demands registrants post “No candy” signs, stay indoors, and turn off their lights. But the facts say there’s no increase in child harm on Halloween. The facts say millions have been spent on patrol hours, sign production, and federal litigation—over $2.1 million in taxpayer funds since 2023 alone. The signs cost more than the candy ever did. The harm isn’t in the treats—it’s in the budget. It’s in the silence. It’s in the courtroom where Missouri defends a law already struck down as unconstitutional. And still, they try to revive it. Still, they compel speech. Still, they ignore the data. No candy. No safety. Just taxpayer-funded silence and a system that hurts more than the fall.
Disclaimer: This entry is provided for informational and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. All data, cost estimates, and case references are based on publicly available sources and coalition research as of September 2025. Outcomes may vary, and legal interpretations are subject to change. Survivors, registrants, and coalition members are encouraged to consult qualified counsel for jurisdiction-specific guidance. Posting this entry does not imply endorsement or affiliation with any government entity. This message complies with public forum standards and includes no identifying information beyond what is publicly documented.
Sorry Missouri. Not gonna happen. You cannot compel speech. The 1st Amendment forbids it. Btw, 1776 will commence again if Republicans try and ignore the 22nd amendment. Only real patriots support that one.
If you are on a ND property without the owner knowing, you deserve to find quicksand and sink in it. Makes me wonder if ND property owners are aware of the compelled speech they are under with a sign detailing such geological conditions. Stupid argument by the Judge since, now, ND property owners can sue to rid themselves of that compelled speech law. Maybe all ND property owners should have all visitors sign a Waiver of Liability doc when they enter properties so they don’t sink in quicksand…or cattle poo.
They are arguing over a sign when turning off the front light works better but is still compelled speech and both are safety issues for those in the abode.
It is a MO law and the injunction is against the whole law for the entire state by a USDC of MO judge, not the entire nation. I wonder at times where we find these legal beagles (sorry beagles, you are beautiful breed of dog).
Common sense for a law? Really?! Do they know how many common sense laws have turned out to be…flaming cattle turds?! Good grief. They are reaching for sure.
” When a child is at the doorstep of a PFR it takes little to lure the child inside or to continue/ or start grooming of a child….” Why not have signs on curbs with those convicted of DUI since they are more at risk to harm a child on Halloween? I don’t recall a PFR doing anything to a child on Halloween, but I have heard stories about kids getting hit by cars. I swear these judges’ brains are full of quicksand and always have their necks out to exit reality.
Revenge is sweet, whilst having your candy, however it all comes out in the end. Is the cost worth it? It’s the promise broken that’s the lesson here—not the money. The First Amendment wasn’t meant to be seasonal. Safety theater shouldn’t override truth. Registrants and survivors weren’t promised silence—they were promised rights. Sheriff’s office says it’s about safety. But $2.1 million and counting buys a lot of toilet paper—and maybe a few Christmas bonuses. What’s next? No Turkey Here. No Santa or Presents Here. No Bunny Here. No Flag Here. If compelled speech is seasonal, then rights are conditional.
Disclaimer: This entry is provided for advocacy and archival purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or imply affiliation with any government entity. All references are based on public records and coalition research as of September 2025.
“The cow don’t know it’s quicksand” is a false equivalence argument.
Last time I checked cows can’t read, however: It’s funny he brought it up, though. Livestock actually have enough sense and instinct to head towards a big tree with a large canopy (for shelter) when they see rain clouds approaching. They’re herd animals, but every now and then, you’ll find one standing alone in the middle of the field getting all wet in the downpour. Perhaps the heifer is not stubborn, but actually enjoys it and is an adrenaline junkie.
The point I’m trying to make is – sign or no sign, – people tend to chose their own outcomes based on their experience levels,
“Posted – No Trespassing” signs are a preemptive warning from entering a forbidden area.
The “No Halloween here” signs are merely advisory to would-be trick-r-treaters that someone with a previous sex conviction lives here, but THAT is where the innocence of their argument fails. The sign implies that the individual – or family – that lives there, is like the one in the Chainsaw Massacre that will snatch you up and drag you inside.
The sign placement is fear-based, not reality-based.
Here’s the scary part nobody is thinking about.
Suppose they win the sign dispute. What’s to stop them from requiring everyone to place a sign on their property year-round? Or a 3-foot, bright red traffic cone in our yard permanently ?
Quicksand! 🤭These idiot judges will come up with anything to make themselves look good in front of politicians. Without a sign posted, little Johnny might fall into the clutches of a predator handing out candy. And he won’t be able to escape.
I hope the win goes to Janice and the loser goes to Jefferson City.
This lawsuit may have parallels to our Missouri case:
https://www.ky3.com/2025/10/04/federal-employee-union-sues-over-out-of-office-messages-sent-behalf-furloughed-workers/
Or maybe these workers don’t have a valid claim because of the supposed requirement for quicksand signs in North Dakota. [sarcasm]