The State of Missouri filed its final brief today with the U.S. Supreme Court in the pending challenge to a state law that required all registrants in that state to post a sign on their home on Halloween. This brief is a reply to the brief filed September 8 on behalf of a registrant who was convicted for failing to abide by this law.
In its brief, Missouri repeated unsuccessful arguments made in both the trial court and the appellate court. The primary argument made in the brief was that there is a difference of opinion between appellate courts on this issue.
“Once again Missouri asserts that laws requiring a registrant to register in a private place is the same as a law that requires a registrant to publicly identify himself as a registrant,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
Missouri also asserts that the Halloween sign requirement is conduct and not speech. In fact, Missouri states that “the burdens on speech imposed by the Halloween-notice requirement are merely incident conduct regulations.” Further, Missouri asserts that the trial and appellate courts “were wrong to view Respondent’s challenge through a compelled speech lens.”
“The most egregious statement made in this brief is that ‘common sense suggests sex offenders are a threat on Halloween night,'” stated Bellucci. “Missouri has failed to provide and is unable to provide evidence to support this statement. That is because both government and academic reports have concluded the opposite as argued by the registrant.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to announce the cases in which it has granted or denied review on October 13.
Click here to download the brief
Thank you Jancie and ACSOL for your continued coverage and advocacy regarding these matters! The fight continues and I’m hoping we get good results for Missouri
Wasn’t the Salem witch trials “conduct based?”
They’re just making themselves look more desperate and pathetic.
I hope Misery and other states’ AGs have a spooky October and get one heck of a nightmare. May the lawsuit fall flat on its bloated weight and Misery’s AG can cry like a baby. Misery and Co. meet Janice Balls to Walls Bellucci if you dare to continue the war on registrants.
Grasping they are from the state of Misery and it shows but doing the job they are paid to do, win, lose, or draw. Is it sadistic if one wants this to be heard so the high court could finally and hopefully squash it with some sanity? Not that I believe the ol’ high one who sits with his red bow tie would vote to squash this matter given his record of the past…#iykyk
“…a law that requires a registrant to publicly identify himself as a registrant” – sounds like compelled speech to me and a violation of 1A in addition to Equal Protection since no other defamatory name related to a criminal conviction is required to be applied and voiced, e.g., drunk, addict, drunk driver, thief, murderer, public menace, etc.