Source: ACSOL
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision today declaring that a Missouri state law that required registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween violates the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In its decision, the Court agreed that the sign requirement is both compelled speech and not narrowly tailored.
As a result, the Court applied strict scrutiny to its review of the Halloween sign requirement. The Court went on to find that there was no convincing evidence that the Halloween signs added anything to advance the goal of protecting children.
“This is a major victory for the Constitution as well as more than 30,000 people in Missouri who are required to register,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
Although the Court ruled in favor of registrants on the merits of the case, the Court vacated the permanent statewide injunction granted by the trial court. The trial court is now required to create a new remedy that addresses the unconstitutional state law.
“It is possible that the Attorney General will request review of today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated Bellucci. “It is unlikely, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant review of this decision.”
Click here to download Appeal – DECISION – Jan 2026
Appeal - DECISION - Jan 2026
“Missouri state law that required registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween violates the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In its decision, the Court agreed that the sign requirement is both compelled speech and not narrowly tailored.”
But forcing people [to provide all of their current personal information to post a sign on the internet causing the public to believe they are currently a dangerous person] is not compelled speech?
1stnis always.proper,….Janice Eaq C O N G R A D U L A T I O NS ‘ A MAJOR.OUT.OF STATE ACOMPLISHMENT! Now thanks to.submission of The Cinst the 30k.have rights relieving fear of dealing with every Halloween for.the rest of their ti.e on The D List, unlike Kat Griffins’ they will no.longer suffer prior toothed 31st yearly
Awesome, thank you for your persistence in this!
Way to go Janice!
a long time coming.
FINALLY a judge ruled something about the registry scheme as unconstitutional – Janice had to educate them!! Thank you, Janice! Excellent work and you made a lot of us very happy with such good news to start the year.
Congrats, Janice & ACSOL!
What does suck is that you have to essentially do this like 50+ times for all the US states and territories. Or maybe win a case in each judicial circuit and have that win be the standard.
THANK YOU, Janice and all who stood up to this lunacy in Missouri. You all are a blessing!
What about the Holberg case out of Florida? Prosecutors are seeking an unconstitutional death sentence. We need as much coverage of that as possible please.
Praise God!!!!!!!
This is very good precedent! The entire 8th at this point and 11th CCOA are now banned from doing such stupidity. Congrats @ACSOL & Janice!
Of course, we need to count for two weeks from today to ensure they don’t request an en banc review by the 8th as noted in the cover letter within such time. Hope they are smarter than that, but never know in the state of Misery.
You are amazing, too bad we have a cowardly, self interest SCOTUS that won’t do their job. Sending a donation for your great work.
What a Treat! Thank you Janice!
Misery where Bellucci shows them not to mess with PFRS. Next trip Bellucci goes to Washington in March. Then Bellucci goes in front of Scrotus( Supreme not so much) Court arguing the registry wins her case, and finally Mt. Rushmore.
This is great! Now. How about going after the stamp on the passports????
Hey Janice, thank you so very much for the really BIG awesome win in MO for the Halloween sign!!! Really appreciate all you do, thank you, thank you!!
@ACSOL, et al
There is much here to be gleaned from the reading of their opinion if one takes the time to do so. Encourage all who stop by this thread to read the short opinion which is succinct and to the point on the matter.
Is there going to be follow up legal action on the remaining sections of the law which seem to infringe on 1A?
What sort of follow up will @ACSOL provide on this matter as it continues to go forward until completed? There is follow on work to be done on the injunctive relief.
I find interesting the testimony of the LEOs about the sign itself, e.g., the sign language, placements, etc. They admitted much to what we have in the forum mentioned previously about what would satisfy the law, e.g., a yellow sticky with the verbiage in question displayed on the front door or anywhere. I bet those who crafted the law knew they were trying to ride the fine line of infringing on 1A with stating a sign needed to be posted without any further criteria needing to be met, e.g., font, size, color, etc.
Do the people now understand the underlying facts about their ignorance on dangerousness related to PFRs and how the alleged mitigating facts don’t work as testified to by LE, e.g., “kids walk up to an unlit house anyway”? Nice work in getting LE to admit these under oath!
Now we’ll see a huge increase in sex related crimes on Halloween (sarcasm)
Wow, the judges making the quick sans analogy a while back had me worried but reason one the day.
“a Missouri state law that required registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween violates the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In its decision, the Court agreed that the sign requirement is both compelled speech and not narrowly tailored.”
A state law requiring PFR to post a sign on their home on Halloween violates the First Amendment, but forcing PFR to post a sign on the internet every single day, which includes not only their home but all their other pertinent private information, is not?!?
Somebody please splain this to me?
WTF!
Emergency Relief, the government is using the internet to harm PFR!