After more than a year of delay, the federal district court issued an order in the SORNA regulations challenge. The order is complex as it addresses multiple legal issues raised by one or both of the parties in the litigation.
Due to its complexity, the order can and already has been interpreted in different ways. And it is sure to be analyzed and pondered by lawyers and legal scholar for many months, if not years.
On its surface, the order appears to be clear. After all, it made permanent an injunction issued months ago.
The source of the complexity is language within the order that provides a foundation for the injunction. The most complex language can be found in the court’s discussion of due process, the one issue which the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
For example, the order states that the “real crux of the issue seems to be that few statutes impose criminal liability for a person’s failure to act.” The order also states that “it does not offend due process to then shift the burden to a defendant (but)…(t)has is simply not how criminal liability works in the country.”
The order further states that “the Executive and Legislative branches have tread too far onto defendants’ constitutional rights.” This statement appears to include defendants convicted of a sex offense.
Finally, the order recognizes that a person charged with violating SORNA “can face meaningful, life-altering prejudice and consequences merely by virtue of being charged.” The order also states that the “Rule’s clear statement that a defendant is not relieved of his or her burden by a state’s refusal to register contemplates the prospect of prosecution….”
Overall, this court order raises many questions that can only be answered if this order is appealed. An appeal of this order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is likely by either Pacific Legal Foundation due to the order’s decision regarding the separation of powers or by the federal government due to the granting of a permanent injunction.
It will be up to the 9th Circuit of Appeals to interpret the court’s order. In the meantime, it must be remembered that this order is not binding precedent in any other state. Therefore, any challenge to SORNA filed in another state would be starting with a blank state, a lack of precedent.
So, while this order protects Californians federal rights to due process, when if ever will we have a challenge to SORNA that positively affects everyone or do we need a challenge before the Supreme Court? We have too many laws that make no sense on this issue and spend way too much tax payer money on something that is clearly broken and we have the elected misinformed writing the rules.
Kafka attempted to burn all his works at the end of his life, looks like yet again one epistle has escaped. No doubt this will yet again allow those in power to do what they want.
Lots of questions on how we should comply.
They make it vague intentionally so judges can interpret it however they want.