A federal district court in Idaho issued a decision recently in which it agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the requirement to register is not punishment. Therefore, governments may retroactively apply new collateral consequences after a registrant is convicted.
“This federal court ignored the significant harm caused to registrants and their families in its decision,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
In the decision, the court stated that SORNA requirements are “time-consuming, burdensome and inconvenient.” The court also acknowledged that “there are some negative implications, assumptions, or stigmatizations” due to the SORNA regulations. The court, however, stated “that is still not enough.”
Also in the decision, the court stated that “nothing in SORNA enables law enforcement to subject registrants to random house checks.” “If SORNA does not enable random house checks, also known as compliance checks, then why do they continue to take place,” stated Bellucci.
The court acknowledged in its decision that plaintiffs provided evidence that registries and notification laws do not reduce recidivism. The court, however, chose to ignore this evidence because “there is not a scientific consensus regarding whether registries reduce recidivism.”
In its decision, the court clearly stated its conclusion: that registration, including SORNA requirements, are “a civil regulatory scheme” and not “akin to criminal punishment.”
Click here to download the decision
Could the court draw us a picture of what would be considered “punishment”? Is this like “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”?
I bet 100% of them and every person would quickly change their mind on this if it was them or someone they care about.
Once again they get it wrong. I wish the word “burdensome” would stop being used in these challenges. Burdensome is interchageable with “hardship” which is NOT considered punitive. Instead use targeted retaliation or wilful/wreckless endangerment. Having your information put online (regardless for the purposes of the public safety argument) invites and increases the chances of bodily hard, property damage and enticement to murder. It actually gives the greenlight to mentally disturbed individuals to do “God’s work.”
If having one’s physical address posted online is not punishment, then why did SCOTUS members get their home addresses scrubbed from the net?
“A civil regulatory scheme and not akin to criminal punishment “????? Then WHY if you fail to register, you are criminally charged and punished?? Here in AZ, it’s a Class 4 Felony!
Not punishment my A$$. I have had no less than 5 job offers (in writing) and although 290.46 clearly establishes that being on the registry may not be a factor in EMPLOYMENT decisions, I’ve lost every offer. One employer had already hired me, I was driving Truck with a Trainer and we were in Nashville Tenn. when they called me to tell me a Lyft driver would pic me up, take me to the airport and they would fly me home back to Sacramento. -The pre-adverse and post-adverse letters came after the adverse action of removing me from their truck. Seems First Advantage impermissibly reported my 21yr old conviction -listing each count separately.
Another company, after I had already accepted the offer, taken the drug test, DOT medical Exam, etc. Just stopped replying to my emails, texts, and letters.
I fail to see how tis is not Punishment, it amounts to banishment from the workforce.
Question for pseudo lawyers- is a restraining order considered punishment? If so, how is a restriction from being certain locations any different? I’ve always thought a school/daycare restriction was like a restraining order in that it’s a do not trespass sign. But it only applies to the registrant and not the general public.
You see, what the restriction is actually doing is removing a registrant from the general public. It’s under the guise of public safety but…guess what… Registrants are a part of the public too. And I think that’s at the heart of the punishment. You can’t live here, but the general public can. You can’t be close to this or that but everyone else can. So to say it’s inconvenient to be removed from the general public is a complete downplay of the reality of the situation.
It’s a form of banishment but you’re not dead to society. Only partially removed. It’s horrible to have your name splattered over the internet but it’s not incarceration. So it’s not punishment? No one believes that. Registration is enacted upon sentencing for a crime. And the statutes fall under criminal statutes. In all purposes it’s punishment.
Another lawyerish question..The Ellingburg SCOTUS case concluded that paying restitution is punishment. I’m having a difficult time seeing the difference.
The court could ask: If MVRA’s “penalty” language matters, shouldn’t idahos placement of SORA in the criminal-code section of statutes and criminal-enforcement mechanism count the same way?
Not punishment. Yeah ok.
I remember when I used to live in Waterford Michigan. I would take time off work, losing money, to go do my verification. Then for several days afterwards, a Waterford cop would show up at my house hanging in my door at 2 in the morning to do his “compliance check”. Then a day or two later another cop would show up and do it again. This would happen for 4 or 5 days after each time I verified and always around 2 in the morning.
When I went to the police station to file a complaint, stating there was nothing in the law that said I have to comply with these verification checks and that it amounted to harassment especially at 2 in the morning, I was always told the same thing, “we didn’t have anyone available during the day”. Bullshit. Whenever I had a day off work I would drive around and find several Waterford cops just sitting in their cars in parking lots doing absolutely nothing.
So I started giving them a taste of their own medicine. I’d track them down, phone camera in hand, and start aggressively questioning them as to why they were just sitting there and not out doing their jobs.
Eventually I moved out of Waterford. They were the only agency that bothered me. I’ve lived in Lake Orion, Lapeer, Imlay City, and West Bloomfield and not one cop from any of those departments ever harassed me with compliance checks.
The only issue I had with another agency was Imlay City. When I first moved there they tried to tell me I needed to provide proof that I lived where I said I lived. I told them the address is on my license and that’s all the proof I’m required to give. They told me they require that I show them a utility bill in my name that has my address on it. I told them to get screwed. I signed my paperwork and left. Two weeks later they called me to ask me why I haven’t registered in their city. I asked them what they were talking about and they told me they had no record of me verifying my address. I said that’s funny since I have the signed paperwork from them with the deputy’s name on it. I contacted an attorney who told me it looked like they were trying to set me up with failure to register, so within two weeks I found another house in a different city. Since that day I always made sure to keep a copy of the signed verification paperwork because it saved my ass. Nothing else came from that incident and I think it was a smart move to get out of there.
David Nye, the judge in this case, was installed by Donald Trump FYI.
You all nailed it with your comments. Only thing I can say is it is so disheartening. I am a positive optimistic person, or at least I used to be before my family was thrust into this perverse registry scheme. The judges are lying to themselves and the public. They are not stupid, they know they are lying, and that’s why we are not seeing any serious progress in the courts – they are corrupt.
If the registry isn’t cruel and unusual punishment I’d hate to see what they consider it being. Having human beings denied housing, employment, relationships, shunned from churches, and other issues is PUNISHMENT due to past conviction(s) from decades ago. Even Stevie Wonder could see it and the math isn’t mathing, but their bs will catch all their lips sooner or later. Tell me lies, tell me sweet lies, you aren’t pulling the wool over my eyes because our government is full of cow dong.
The New Race in America
Written by Quiet Too Long | 10/01/2026
Disclaimer: This work is a piece of political commentary and allegorical nonfiction. The governmental policies, legislative statistics, and law enforcement actions described—including Register Operations—are matters of historical and public record. Specific names of private citizens have been omitted. Any characterizations of public motivations, financial opportunism, or institutional intent (such as the actions of the tax repos) represent the author’s personal analysis, critique, and firsthand commentary on the systemic impact of these policies under the protections of the First Amendment.
The New Race (NR) was created by state and federal governments through a new set of unconstitutional laws, spanning 15,000 pages when compiled across 50 states and 3,224 counties. There is no advanced training provided to navigate these vague statutes, and access to schools is heavily restricted—so you had better already know how to read. This “new race” consists of ordinary citizens who have fully served their time and are no longer on probation or parole. Yet, legislatures created, applied, and categorized them. Agencies defined them and conspired against them. Registries identified them and exposed them to the public. Databases tracked, alphabetized, and displayed them worldwide. Regulations criminalized and expanded their boundaries. Finally, administrative systems restricted, penalized, and maintained them in civil courts with criminal consequences—all while DNA classification permanently marks them. And the public simply accepts it.
The New Race is expected to constantly measure distances on the go to avoid prohibited zones, and to construct and report an agenda of daily life to the exact letter of the law. Furthermore, if members of the public interact with this race, they too must conform to these rules. In some cases, ordinary citizens must report what the New Race is doing, driving, or working—or face suffering alongside them. We see this in the church case, where a member of the New Race was explicitly permitted by the state to work and survive. Yet, driven by pure human scum nature and personal revenge, a member of the public looked him up solely to trigger a massive, predatory lawsuit for cash. Even though specialized forensic interviews proved absolutely no child or citizen was ever fondled, touched, watched, or harmed, the public feigned victimhood for a payday—leaving law-abiding citizens who stepped in to help facing criminal charges, while the state entity washed its hands of the matter. No victims were ever reported, except for the mere visual presence of the New Race.
This group is subjected to notification, reporting, verification, identification, and travel requirements. They face miles and hours of servitude obligations packed into a loaded gun—one full of congested criminal penalties long enough to destroy everything they have built. We see the true motive in sweeps like Register Operations that hunt down people and arrest their oldest, most self-supported citizens over paperwork technicalities. Weeks before the hunt, the media cycles headlines claiming that teachers and schools need a raise. It is a calculated prelude for the tax repos and local tax entities to commandeer the real estate and back taxes of these exact individuals. In ordinary talk, it is government-sanctioned theft. Or, 2+2=4. The distinction here is not merely the volume of the law. The distinction is race. The government created a new race, attached 15,000 pages of additional duties to it, and functionally rewrote our constitutions to ensure it was not a mistake.
By contrast, the ordinary citizen is expected to simply abide by the law. Ordinary citizens may travel, move, reside, work, and live without constructing a rigid daily agenda or continually reporting to government agencies. While ordinary citizens can be punished for violating the law—and those laws may amount to thousands of pages across fifty states—their basic obligation remains simple: don’t speed, don’t kill, and if you are accused, you retain your constitutional rights.
The New Race, however, can be punished just for failing to report themselves to the law, all while still being forced to obey ordinary statutes. Yet, they are excluded from constitutional rights in most cases.
For example, take a simple drive from Maine to California. An ordinary person can do this every day for business or pleasure without consequence. For the New Race, that same trip can cost up to 30 days just to acquire permission to leave. (No, you cannot leave today to visit your dying father in California on the spur of the moment.) Then, a single flat tire or a blown engine can cost you your livelihood and land you in a county jail, left entirely to the whim of a local officer. In this shadow system, actual physical evidence of a crime is no longer required; law enforcement relies strictly on subjective mental observations as their reference to direction of a crime. With zero real evidence, an officer’s passing thought becomes a felony.
All of this happens while the state, with the help of the federal government, holds a felony-charged gun to the New Race’s head. Because all of these rules carry heavy criminal penalties without constitutional protections, they are hidden away in civil court. This masks an insidious system that tries criminal actions in civil arenas specifically to bypass state and federal protections—a process that is directly against the ordinary person’s constitution. The distinction is not the 15,000 pages. The ordinary citizen abides by the law; the New Race is required to predict the law, measure distances, navigate the conflicting rules of 3,224 counties, and continually report to the government. Missing a deadline, failing to update information, or failing to satisfy a regulatory requirement results in criminal penalties—even when no new underlying crime has been committed.
Thus, the ultimate question is not whether additional rules exist. The question is whether a government-created race can legally be subjected to a separate, permanent regulatory system that follows an individual through states, counties, databases, and programs for decades after their sentence has ended.
Is it truly constitutional to continue with this New Race?
Now you have to do it all over again. Enjoy your drive home. Welcome to the New Race.
A civil regulatory scheme does NOT impose criminal punishment.
A civil regulatory scheme only imposes fines.
Why isn’t anyone asking the courts to define the difference instead of us telling them?
They are all taught that civil schemes do NOT impose criminal punishment and they cannot escape that fact when cornered.
You cannot have civil and a criminal scheme both at the same time.
Make THEM tell us what they learned in law school about the difference.
They cannot escape what they themselves learned.
For example:
Lawyer “your Honor, what is the difference between a civil regulatory scheme and a criminal scheme?”
Judge; “Civil regulatory schemes only impose fines or restitution and a criminal scheme imposes incarceration.
Lawyer: “Correct, your Honor!! That being said, how then can the registry be labeled as a civil regulatory scheme when it imposes a criminal punishment for an infraction against it??”
ANY LAW that put’s you and your family in harm’s way, circumvents your safety, security and privacy is NOT “civil.”
I suspect one of the reasons no sitting federal judge wants to rule in favor of SORNA meeting the threshold for punitive or “cruel and unusual” is because they’d know what would follow: death threats, calls for impeachments and being labled an “activist judge” by the far right.
Perhaps Janice or some other knowledgable legal expert can opine if this case is ripe for appeal to the 9th Circuit? Are the facts of this case, and the subject matter (i.e., is the registry ‘punishment’ or is it a violation of the 4th & 8th, and perhaps the 14th Amendments), what we have been looking for in an appellate case that will get us back in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for another bite at the apple?
If this be the case then anyone within the court system needs to start questioning the real differences between criminal punishment and civil regulatory scheme. There apparently needs to be a VERY clear line drawn in the sand on the definition between the two. Bring up the fact that they know the statitistics are false, increasing the thought of fear mongering to create the ‘champion'(politicians) just for a vote or fear of retaliation from colleagues or society. Broad terminology leaves things open to be interpreted however a person wants to perceive them which can make severe consequences for decades. Clear definitions and terminology need to be used. They’re wanting to play word games apparently. This obviously allows for too much emotional bias into a court room, which is a hard argument to prove but it’s definitely a consistent part of the argument.
Despite the registry all courts can walk on hot coal till they burn their feet and backsides ( hopefully they don’t fart otherwise they would burn to a crisp) admitting that the registry contiues all because they are scared of backlash.
Maintaining a scam with compiled lies is essentially the Registry.
RE:
“Also in the decision, the court stated that “nothing in SORNA enables law enforcement to subject registrants to random house checks.” “If SORNA does not enable random house checks, also known as compliance checks, then why do they continue to take place,” stated Bellucci.”
I’ve been saying for the longest that “compliance checks” and the statutes/ordinances authorizing them (if applicable) should be challenged in court as unreasonable searches and seizures against the 4th Amendment and state counterparts. The law in all states is that a person is innocent until proven guilty – I see no law or precedent that holds registry rules are an exception. Absent a call or investigation/suspicion of a crime, there is no reason for LE to knock on any door. If there is reasonable suspicion of a specific registry violation, they can get a warrant. Poking around, hoping to find something incriminating is exactly what the 4th Amendment forbids.
Might be a stupid question, but I would say how do we go get “scientific consensus” so it can be revisited or put to rest?
Judges and lawmakers should be forced to live under the laws for perspective on constitutional issues. I’m sure they would consider sex offense laws punishment if they had to deal with walking on eggshells for 1 week, 5 years, 15 years, or for life. Put their lives on the line for public safety.
Not punishment? Then what would you call it? For four years, I wasn’t publicly listed on the registry. I was working as a manager, supporting my family, and finally getting somewhere in life. Then I moved one city over, and a year later, the Sheriff’s Office told me they had “forgotten about me” and reclassified me as Level II. The next day, I was publicly listed. Within a week, I lost my job, my home, and most of the people I thought were lifelong friends. I haven’t slept much in days, watching my savings disappear on hotels, apartment applications, and bills. At 2 a.m., I was writing a letter for my pardon, asking myself what I’ve accomplished in ten years. I’ve lost five jobs, been evicted twice, and experienced homelessness. Every time I rebuild, everything falls apart again. I’ve completed probation, treatment, and stayed out of trouble. I take full responsibility for what I did, but my wife committed no crime, so why is she suffering too? If losing your career, home, savings, and stability isn’t punishment, sanity, what is? When do we finally get a chance to move on?
The act of going in and registering is a pain, and embarrassment, but ok. If it were just them writing it in their notebook for reference in case they need to follow up on an incident. Ok.
But, the fact that someone can easily find that online and panic and accuse and stereotype is hurtful and harmful. Like so many have said here, we are being continually punished for decisions in our past, for a lifetime.
Having your info used to deny housing, employment, pushed to the fringe of society, and used as a list to commit harm including murder all do to a conviction is punishment. Not all sex crimes are equal and the majority of registrants have a full deck upstairs compared to most of society excluding Janice and others working hard to fight for our rights. Even with the punishmet the registry and sex crime restrictions are registrants still have a low re-offense rate. Mr. Chief Roberts, tear down Smith v Doe because the registry has got to go!!
Well, the powers that be who are in the corner of PFRs need to come together and create a consensus of the lack of reducing recidivism of PFRs by the way of registries. Some create it, some peer review it, make it the standing principle. Not hard. There are plenty of experts who can do this. Bring them all together for a big conference in a room and do it. Then there cannot be a valid way for the courts to deny the principle.
As for “burdensome” by the court’s standard, are they implying they need to invoke safety of the public at the hands of making life burdensome on PFRs like the military does for good order and discipline (sacrificial lambs perhaps)?
The Historical Parallel: How “Equal Protection” Collapses
When legal scholars draw parallels between the post-Civil War era and modern policy debates, they point to three exact mechanisms:
1. State-Sanctioned Targeting & Mob Vigilantism
Then: Southern states passed laws that restricted where Black Americans could live, work, and travel. State officials then allowed private mobs (like the Ku Klux Klan) to enforce terror, while courts refused to intervene, claiming the violence was committed by “private individuals,” not the state.
Now: State governments publish exact home addresses and interactive maps online. When vigilantes use those public databases to threaten, assault, or murder registrants and their innocent family members, courts often frame it as the actions of individual criminals rather than a direct, predictable outcome of state action.
2. Economic Banishment & Destitution
Then: Vagrancy laws and housing restrictions made it nearly impossible for freed people to own property or secure employment, forcing them into cycles of poverty and forced labor.
Now: Extreme residency restrictions (banning people from living near schools, parks, bus stops, or entire municipalities) make it nearly impossible for registrants to find legal housing, leading to mass unhoused populations, perpetual unemployment, and social isolation.
3. Judicial Deference to State Abuse
Then: For decades after Reconstruction, federal courts systematically turned a blind eye, ruling that state regulations were valid exercises of “police power” and refusing to apply the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to protect targeted groups.
Now: Federal courts frequently defer to state politicians who claim registry laws are mere “civil safety regulations,” choosing to ignore thirty years of data showing that these laws fail to increase safety while actively subjecting citizens to extrajudicial punishment.
Why the 14th Amendment Should Apply
Under a strict reading of the 14th Amendment:
Due Process requires that the state cannot strip a person of basic liberty, safety, or privacy without a fair, individual risk assessment.
Equal Protection demands that the state cannot pass laws that intentionally subject a specific group of citizens to violence and homelessness under the guise of state regulation.
When a government creates a system that predictably results in mob violence, family destruction, and social exile—and courts refuse to stop it—it is a textbook example of state officials turning a blind eye to the very constitutional protections the 14th Amendment was designed to enforce.
This is why modern civil rights litigation on this issue is built almost entirely on 14th Amendment claims: lawyers are asking federal judges to remember why the 14th Amendment was created and to stop allowing state legislatures to bypass it.