The Supreme Court recently decided, in Packingham v. North Carolina, whether North Carolina’s ban on the use of social networking websites by registered sex offenders is constitutional. The principal legal issue in the case was whether the ban violates the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional for that reason. Yet another issue arose in the briefing and oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The litigants and certain amici curiae engaged in some debate about whether such a restriction is necessary in the…
Read MoreTag: SCOTUS
This Case Could Help Prevent Congress From Outsourcing Its Power
[dailysignal.com] How much authority can Congress give to the attorney general to effectively write the criminal laws? That’s a question the Supreme Court will address next term in a newly added case, Gundy v. United States. This case goes to the heart of the Constitution’s separation of powers and, specifically, how much Congress can pass the buck to the executive branch to make our nation’s laws. And that, in turn, is about safeguarding liberty. In Gundy, the court will review Congress’ delegation of authority to the attorney general to decide…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court May Revive a Legal Theory Last Used to Strike Down New Deal Laws
[UPDATED links 3/9/18] [slate.com] On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gundy v. United States, a constitutional challenge to federal sex offender regulations. If, like me, you believe that America’s current sex offender regime is draconian, unjust, and counterproductive, that might sound like good news! And perhaps it is. But there’s one aspect of the court’s grant that may be very bad news from progressive viewpoint: It will only consider whether the policy in question violates the nondelegation doctrine—a hazy legal principle last used to strike down New Deal legislation in 1935. Full…
Read MorePA: U.S. Supreme Court denies appeal of sex offender decision
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to a recent state court ruling that determined part of Pennsylvania’s sex offender registration law was unconstitutional. Full Article Related https://floridaactioncommittee.org/scotus-refuses-to-hear-pa-case-that-found-sex-offender-registry-punishment/ http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-121B-2016oajc%20-%2010317692521317667.pdf
Read MoreSex offender registries endanger the lives they’re meant to protect
Our communities deserve effective public-safety measures that are based on facts and sound research, not wasteful and counterproductive measures born of fear. We all want to be safe. We have to demand our legislators pass laws that work and actually keep us safe. That’s especially true when it comes to sexual offenses. http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/357096-sex-offender-registries-endanger-the-lives-theyre-meant-to-protect?amp
Read MoreMN: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Minnesota Sex Offender Case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that it won’t hear a challenge to Minnesota’s sex offender civil commitment system (Karsjens v Piper), which allows people who have been deemed sexually dangerous to be committed to a treatment facility for an indefinite period of time. Full Article Order List
Read MoreMI: SCOTUS denies review in Snyder v. Doe
UPDATE: Statement from the Michigan ACLU The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear the State of Michigan’s appeal in a challenge to the state¹ sex offender registration law, which was dealt a major blow by a federal appeals court in a unanimous decision last year. Today’s announcement effectively requires the Michigan legislature to replace the existing law, thus creating an opportunity to reform Michigan’s registry, which has been widely criticized as bloated and ineffective. The lawsuit was originally brought by the ACLU of Michigan and the…
Read MoreWill SCOTUS Let Fear of Sex Offenders Trump Justice?
Two cases give the Court a chance to reconsider its counterintuitive conclusions about commitment and registration. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, locking up sex offenders after they have completed their sentences is not punishment, and neither is branding them as dangerous outcasts for the rest of their lives. Two cases the Court could soon agree to hear give it an opportunity to reconsider, or at least qualify, those counterintuitive conclusions. Full Article Also see Snyder vs Doe Karsjens v Piper
Read MoreSex offender laws and the 6th Circuit’s Ex Post Facto Clause ruling
I wanted to add a few words to co-blogger Jonathan Adler’s posting about the recent 6th Circuit decision in Doe v. Snyder, in which the court voided application of the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on the grounds that it imposes retroactive punishment on previously convicted sex offenders in violation of the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. Full Editorial ***this article is from September 2016. Sorry. Moderator*** Snyder v. Doe
Read MorePA: Cumberland County DA Freed to request U.S. Supreme Court review of sex offender decision
Roughly two weeks ago the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the state’s current sex offender registration law to be punishment and ultimately barred by both the state and federal constitutions when applied retroactively. That decision may now end up under review from the highest court in the country. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said Friday his office would ask the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, which was handed down on July 19. Full Article
Read MoreSex offender consequences in the Supreme Court – what’s ahead?
“The Supreme Court’s Mixed Signals in Packingham” is the title of a thoughtful comment by Bidish Sarma analyzing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, recently published on the American Constitution Society website. (An early analysis of the Packingham decision by Wayne Logan appeared on this site on June 20.) Mr. Sarma proposes that “the time has come to ask whether society’s ‘war’ on sex offenders who have already completed criminal sentences has gone too far.” Full Article
Read MoreSCOTUS: High court won’t hear sex offender case
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined a request to review a McLean County case involving the issue of whether registered sex offenders should have access to social media. Full Article Related IL: A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech
Read MoreSCOTUS Symposium: Packingham and Fact-Checking the Supreme Court
Last week’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina is getting a lot of attention in part because of this fact checker column in the Washington Post. Packingham involved a challenge to a North Carolina law that severely restricted the ability of registered sex offenders to access various websites, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. All eight participating Justices agreed that the law violated the First Amendment because it was unable to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. Although the Court acknowledged that protecting children from sex offenders was a legitimate government interest, the law…
Read MoreMN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional Rights
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a North Carolina preventing sex offenders from accessing social media and other websites – without any attempt to tailor restrictions to potential contact with minors – violated the First Amendment. But restrictions on the freedom of speech aren’t the only unconstitutional deprivations sex offenders face. Full Article
Read MoreJustice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests
“Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. ‘When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.’” –Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., concurring opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina, June 19, 2017 Full Article Video Related Fact-Checking the Fact Checker A misdirected attack on two notable sentences in Justice Alito’s Packingham concurrence
Read MoreTX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rules
Texas rules barring some sex offenders from using certain websites were thrown into jeopardy Monday morning after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar statute in North Carolina violates the First Amendment. Full Article
Read MoreSCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a North Carolina law which prohibits all registrants from accessing commercial social networking websites used by minor children violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “This is a tremendous victory for the registrants of North Carolina as well as registrants throughout the nation,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for the first time that registrants have First Amendment rights including the use of social media websites including Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.” In its decision, the…
Read MoreIL: Supreme Court asked to review McLean County sex offender issue
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case against a Normal man to determine the constitutionality of Illinois’ rules mandating that sex offenders report all their internet activity to authorities. Full Article
Read More