Source: ACSOL
Attorneys General in 16 states have filed an amicus brief in support of the petition filed by the Attorney General of Missouri asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that found a Missouri state law that required registrants to post a sign on their home to be unconstitutional. The basis of that decision is that the state law is compelled speech and therefore in violation off the First Amendment.
The lead Attorney General in the amicus brief is the Attorney General from Iowa. The remaining 15 Attorneys General represent that states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.
In their amicus brief, the Attorneys General argue that the Halloween sign law is a constitutional regulation of conduct that imposes only an incidental burden on speech. The state officials also argue that the 8th Circuit erred by divorcing the sign from its functional purpose.
According to the amicus brief, the 16 states “have a profound interest in ensuring that the First Amendment remains a shield for individual liberty without becoming a sword that dismantles the States’ traditional police power to provide for the safety of their neighborhoods.” The brief also states that the “extra safety precautions of mandating a sign to ensure the public has fair warning of that prohibition is much more aligned with standard sex offender related regulations than protected speech.”
“The 16 states that have filed an amicus brief are repeating unsuccessful arguments made by the State of Missouri in both the trial and appellate courts,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “However, the amicus brief adds significance to Missouri’s request for review and could lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of granting the original petition.”
In order to perform the legal work required to oppose the petition as well as the amicus brief, ACSOL needs additional resources. Donations to ACSOL can be made online using the “Donate” button or send to ACSOL at 2110 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95816.
Download the amicus:
I just donated. Please help Janice fight to win.
Be assured, should the Supreme Court approve this and Colorado attempt to implement these signs, I will not be putting one in my yard, the Supreme Court be damned! My wife, an attorney, also lives at my residence and is not going to allow such a sign in our yard.
Iowa’s AG has the perfect last name of Bird because she and the other 15 states are birdbrains who should be sued in the future. Birds of a feather flock together right into a telephone wire where their lies and myths go to die.
So this might become the modus operandi from this point forward when a state loses a case against us. They will get other states to gang up for the loss of one issue and send an amicus to the US Supreme Court. Wow!
It also shows how our Constitution is being undermined by the use of so-called ‘reasoning of security’.
And how many children are raped each year going to the house of a PFR at halloween?
IF this goes goes to the US Supreme Court and they win, a MAJOR hole will have been blown right through the center of the First Amendment- it would no longer be a verbatim Amendment, but a conditional Amendment that is based upon premise,and that is how our Constitution is being eroded.
Each of these state officials should:
1) Be immediately removed from office
2) Lose all pensions and benefits related to this office.
3) Be stripped of any kind of qualified immunity as pertains to their attempt to violate our constitutional rights
4) Be sued personally for attempting to violate our constitutional rights
This shows 100% of what I’ve been posting. They are knowingly abusing the constitution. People like that are the issue and reasoning why America seems to be falling to shambles around every citizen instead of dealing with real time issues that are actually needed to help push this country towards what the forefathers claimed as the pursuit of happiness. It’s becoming a socialist police state. Like I said before they are openly abusing the safety and/or security clause right in our faces. They’ve been doing this to push our political powers internationally. Tubi has a documentary called ‘secrecy’ that explains everything you need to know about it too. How they’ve openly used it to expand the fed. Agencies inside agencies. Secret courts and shadow dockets. Aren’t they supposed to be for the people and not weaponize the constitution against us? It’s an ever expanding machine of corruption. Hope these politicians sleep peacefully…
Every one of those states is red
Go figure
I believe Missouri, Iowa, and the other 15 states’ AGS should have signs in their offices, ” I don’t believe in evidence and the Constitution. I believe in wasting taxpayer money and enhancing my resume. “
Wow! This is horrible. Would it do any good to email our attorney general? I’ve seen James Uthmeier press conferences. He’s a real sweetheart. Ugh! Sending money, Janice!
I’m extremely disgusted – though not surprised – by these garbage State AGs. Sadly, in our current political times, the Constitution is a conditional, use-when-convenient, document. 😩
👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 I’m sending my donation now! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions does the AG of Missouri plan to spend of the taxpayers’ money to appeal this? Taxpayers who pay Catherine Hanaway’s salary: think about crimes your families didn’t get solved because of this exercise. How many criminals were thrown back on the streets without even a slap on the wrist because she was too busy prosecuting lawn signs? While Hanaway wipes her feet on the US Constitution, your loved ones didn’t get justice. Remember that.
Funny how the Georgia AG jumped on this bandwagon in support of the same tired arguments he and his staff used while fighting McClendon v. Long. He could have taken this case to the USSC back then and chose not to, likely because he knew it wouldn’t have prevailed.
Can’t help but wonder if he changed his mind or if his involvement was more politically motivated. Guessing the latter.
I also see a parallel between this case and Miranda v. Arizona. Arizona’s strategy was basically the same – got a bunch of other state AGs to complain that they would never get another conviction if defendants knew they didn’t have to speak. Obviously, that didn’t work.
Doubt it will work here, either.
It sounds like they are getting nervous. I’ll be sending a donation on payday!
perfect definition of Predator These LawMakers who believe they can manipulated the highest court in our land and that the justice’s won’t see through them it is hard to keep faith in times like this where a pack of wolfs want there controle back, Well I have to trust the courts are tired of this fight and will we will prevail in this and it could open doors for other fights!
Misery’s AG and the others following while stomping their feet don’t realize registrants have families too and having a sign places innocent children at risk of being harmed, injured, or murdered yet these arrogant garbage dumpsters don’t care about evidence or the constitution. How many times do they need to beat a dead horse before they ride off on another resume boaster. AGs are nothing but bullies and will throw anything on a defendant, at their appeals court, or the big wigs at the Supreme Court.
If this does go before the Supreme Court I’d love to see Chief Justice sweat like the snake oil sales man he is while wearing a shirt, ” Blood is on your hands John Roberts. The registry has caused more harm than good by making citizens homeless, jobless, isolated, and at the hands of nutjobs. You belong to the worst Chief Justice in American history club and your membership is due.”
You know, a “STOP” sign serves a ligitimate public safety purpose at an intersection that doesn’t have traffic lights. It actually saves lives, mitigates risk and prevents property damage. Conversely, the weak and fear-based argument for “Halloween signs” placed where someone forced to register lives will NEVER meet that REAL WORLD TESTED level of sacrosant public safety.
“Conduct based” is alos a flawed argument rooted in fear because it iiimplies that people convicted of a sex offense are incapable of conduct regulation and can’t control their urges. ALL NOT TRUE!
The sign issue is just a symptom of the growing cancerous registry that was built upon a foundation of lies, myths and fear. The SCOTUS challenge is just a wishful cure for a lot of brusied egos in law enforcement.
The Scale of “Safety” in Federal LegislationSince 1980, the word has been embedded in the titles or text of an enormous volume of legislation spanning over 23 congressional terms. Introduced Bills: Lawmakers introduce anywhere from 6,000 to over 15,000 bills during each two-year Congress. Historically, several hundred bills per session explicitly use “Safety” or “Safe” in their titles—ranging from infrastructure and workplace regulations to food and digital environments. Enacted Laws: While only about 4% to 7% of introduced bills actually become law, dozens of major, landmark statutes containing “safety” in their primary titles have passed since 1980. Major Legislative Waves (1980–Present) The legislative focus of “safety” has evolved significantly over the last few decades, moving from physical spaces to digital and social domains:1980s–1990s (Physical & Industrial Safety): Following the creation of OSHA in 1970, the 1980s and 1990s saw heavy usage of the term for heavy industry, transportation, and consumer goods. Examples include the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, automotive air bag and seat belt mandates, and chemical processing laws. 2000s (National & Homeland Security): Following the September 11 attacks, the definition of safety heavily merged with national defense, leading to massive legislative packages tied to aviation safety, border security, and counter-terrorism. 2010s–Present (Digital & Community Safety): In recent years, “safety” has become the primary branding mechanism for tech regulation and public health. This includes bipartisan pushes like the Kids Online Safety Act and gun-related legislation like the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Rhetorical Use of “Safety”In political science, “safety” is considered an unassailable political keyword. Lawmakers frequently structure bill titles using the word—or acronyms that spell it (such as the “SAFE Act”)—because it frames opposition to the bill as an opposition to public welfare. This makes the word one of the most consistently deployed tools for “pushing” legislation through Congress, regardless of which political party is in power.
All this and Judges complain about their address getting out?? I guess I’m confused, it’s as safe as a Costco membership
Wow, they’re really going all in on this matter, huh? Would love to see the Supreme Court take the case and the Feds lose.
I just donated. Please help Janice defeat the EVIL AG’S.
Could this case expose the reality that the unconstitutional halloween sign is equivelant to the unconstitutional internet sign that registrants are forced to continually update under threat of bodily imprisonment?
The absurdity of the fallacious “safety” argument has already exposed itself so where is the governemnts interest in protecting the members of the public it intentionally incites violence against?
How exactly is SORA protecting those forced to register or their families? Where is the concern for THEIR children? Where is this “equal protection of the law” they speak of?