Source: ACSOL
The Missouri Attorney General filed a petition today with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for reconsideration of the Court’s decision issued on January 2. That decision agreed with plaintiff that the Missouri state law at issue requiring all registrants to post a sign on their home on Halloween was unconstitutional.
In its petition, the Attorney General argues that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal judges that ruled in favor of plaintiff misapplied controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent as well as a decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Attorney General asserts that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals must conduct a new hearing in this appeal. The Attorney General has requested both a rehearing by the original panel of three judges as well as an en banc hearing by all judges of that Court.
According to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is allowed to request a rehearing of an appellate decision by a Circuit Court of Appeals. The same rule states, however, that a panel rehearing is the “ordinary means of reconsidering a panel decision; rehearing en banc is not favored.”
In addition, the Rule states that any party opposed to a request for rehearing is not allowed to file a response to that request unless the Court requests it. Further, oral argument is not allowed by either party unless the Court initiates that request.
Click here to download the decision
Petition for En Banc Rehearing - Jan 2026
Over and over again we have seen court decisions in our favor reheard (and then overturned). This government-fostered, government-sponsored hatred is immoral. It is an evil national obsession!
So, if according to the rules neither party can provide oral arguments then what is the point of the original 3 judges plus the en banc judges to rehear the case? I understand the AG is not happy with the outcome of the original appeal, but what a waste of the courts time. Does the Appeals court have the option to dismiss the rehearing request and if so will they?
Re: MO: Attorney General Requests New Hearing in MO Halloween Sign Challenge
January 16, 2026
It is clearly a First Amendment rights violation, it is compelled speech.
Perhaps the MO Attorney General would like it if HE were compelled declare that he is a Moron every time there is a press conference.
Hopefully the DA just wants to appear concerned and the whole thing is frivolous?
Interesting that the attorney general took the entire 2 weeks before filing their request for a rehearing en banc but we shouldn’t be surprised by this move all things considered.
They just don’t want us building any momentum off of this win. Simple as that.
First off, it looks like the MOAG (Missouri Attorney General) wants to use Sanderson’s criminal history as his argument. It’s completely irrelevant. That Sanderson is a registrant is not in dispute. How he became one has absolutely nothing to do with his challenge.
Second, I fell on the floor laughing when I read the MOAG complaints that the court “…must deal with the case in hand and not with imaginary ones” (page 18) and then goes into mass speculation about the supposed need for the stupid signs for different registrants. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to complain about the court’s one-size-fits-all approach in its opinion when the challenged law used the exact same approach when it was written?
Apparently, the MOAG is under the impression that children will ignorantly approach a registrant’s door and be mercilessly groped on or snatched off the porch while parents, accompanying friends, and passersby on the street will just stand there and watch in horror. And I’m sure he has volumes of cases nationwide of exactly that occurring but local DAs were helpless to prosecute them.
And through it all still maintain that the entire case is not compelled speech despite the penalties involved for the registrant who doesn’t speak it. Comparing it to compelled disclosure to the IRS for income taxes is absurd – how else can the IRS calculate and collect? Would the MOAG prefer:
IRS Agent: “Okay, you owe us $120,000 this year. Due April 15th.”
You: “How? I only made $40,000.”
IRS Agent: “You’re refusing to pay your fair share? Let me get the Marshall real quick…”
I don’t need to hear LE testimony of how the signs “are useful.” No matter what their words were, what I’m sure they mean is it helps officers earn overtime harassing registrants who aren’t bothering anyone and give them justification to ignore the drunk drivers and gangstas on drive-bys who pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to trick-or-treaters every year.
But I’m glad the MOAG submitted this appeal and hope it gets heard. If he loses (and he should) then it’s another chink in the wall in the anti-registry fight. If he wins, then there’s a dispute among the circuits, a key requirement for having the matter heard at the US Supreme Court.
SMELLS LIKE “GOVERNMENT” CORRUPTION TO ME!