Source: ACSOL
The Missouri Attorney General (AG) filed today a request for review, also know as petition for certiorari, with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 283-page document, the AG asked the Court to overturn a decision issued by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2026. In that decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that a Missouri state law requiring registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween was unconstitutional because it was compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
In its petition, the AG first argues that there is difference of opinion among Circuit Courts on this issue. Second, the AG argues that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals mistakenly decided that the state law is compelled speech. Third, the AG argues that the state law presents an issue of national importance.
“We disagree with each and every argument made by the Missouri General in its petition for certiorari,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The issue presented in this case is not an issue of national importance and there is no difference of opinion among Circuit Courts.”
The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Sanderson, will have an opportunity to rebut the arguments made by the AG. The initial deadline for that rebuttal is within 30 days after the case has been placed on the docket, however, the Court can extend that deadline upon request.
Download Petition for a Writ of Certiorari:
Having a forced sign on your door due to myths and fear is not a National importance, however the Supreme Court not taking up the case and telling Misery AG to go suck a bug would be national important so other states wouldn’t try putting up these signs for public safety.
As expected, the Missouri AG has requested the U S Supreme Court to review the decision issued by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The surprising part of the request is the AG’s argument that there is a difference of opinion on this topic among Circuit Courts of Appeal. Upon first reading of the request, it appears that the AG is comparing apples to oranges as there is no real difference of opinion among those courts on this issue. The remaining arguments provided by the AG appear to lack merit as well.
This is government-sponsored hate. And it is thinly veiled!
This is why I will never vote for any conservative candidate. They are clearly very fond of performing mental gymnastics, and trying to subvert the constitution in any way they can think of.
“Our enemies are clever and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking up ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” George W. Bush
The first thing that leapt at me on reading this petition is that it begins with the verifiably and repeatedly disproven argument that there is specific “sex offender danger” on Halloween. As we used to say back in my military intelligence days, the finest analysis of faulty information will only result in nonsense.
The Missouri AG (MOAG) went out of her way to examine Sanderson’s original register-able offense, but didn’t even attempt to highlight the numerous sex crimes Sanderson must have committed while he “flagrantly violated Missouri’s law for over a decade.” Nor has she shown the number of sex crimes committed against trick-or-treaters before or since the stupid Halloween signs were mandated. Probably because the number of both is ZERO. It stands to reason (or at least should) that those incontrovertible facts should make their way into the reply.
Next, to support the supposed difference of opinions among the circuits, she’s citing other circuit holdings regarding SORNA in general against the 8th and 11th opinions against the stupid signs specifically. And I personally can’t wrap my head around how any law or law enforcement officer can order a person to post a sign with their verbiage or face arrest is anything but compelled speech, regardless of the level of court scrutiny.
I doubt the US Supreme Court will grant cert here, primarily because it doesn’t look like the MOAG sufficiently established a difference of opinion among the circuits – at least the sign issue is pretty cut and dried. But on the off chance they do, it strikes me as a good opportunity to show that SORNA disclosures (brought into question by the MOAG, not this movement) are not “of critical national importance.” It would be the perfect time to show the registry has not (and never will) prevented any sex crime or contributed anything meaningful to the investigation of one. And that the very few recidivists were always registry-compliant. Then summarize with the holding that the protection of children is not carte blanche to run roughshod over the rights of adults.
I’m sure I’ll have a ton of other thoughts and opinions after I finish reading this petition, assuming I don’t come out a little dumber for having read it.
The statistics related to obtaining review of this case by the U S Supreme Court are not in favor of the Attorney General. According to recent statistics, the Court grants review in less than one percent of the cases requesting review. Having said that, we must reply to the request in order to rebut the AG’s baseless arguments.
“An issue national importance?”
Deleterious compelled speech on a national level is “important” everyone!
I hope the Supreme Court gives Misery’s AG the cold shoulder and for other states to get the message that if they try this bs a lawsuit will be in their future. I believe lawmakers and other government officials should come with warning signs stating they are full of hot air and to proceed with caution.
Missouri’s cert petition repeatedly calls the Halloween sign (“No candy or treats at this residence”) a “factually accurate” disclosure. They argue it is true because the law prohibits “participating in Halloween”. but the statute does not prohibit possession of candy or treats, yet the sign declares they are not present. Even if one isn’t “participating in Halloween”, but they have a cookie in their pantry, the sign is false. Doesn’t this undermine Missouri’s “just factual” claim and strengthen the compelled speech argument?