A bit of a setback in the 7th Circuit as en banc panel partially reverses earlier decision.
Here’s a case we’ve been following for a while… In January, we originally reported a victory in Indiana, after the 7th Circuit upheld a District Court decision that ruled in favor of a group of persons with past sexual offense convictions who move to Indiana and were forced to register, where they would not have to had they been convicted in Indiana. In May we reported that the entire 7th Circuit has chosen to rehear the case.
Well a couple days ago, the decision came back and here it is: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-16/C:19-2523:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:2748072:S:0
While the bad news is that they reversed the prior victory, the good news is that they remanded the case to the lower court for consideration of the equal protection claim. In lay terms, they are sending the case back to the district court that originally issued a ruling that was favorable to the registrants. Overall, not a good decision.
For a more comprehensive analysis, please visit: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/divided-7th-circuit-reverses-order-to-remove-sex-offender-names-for-right-to-travel-violation-but-remands-equal-protection-claim
How is not favorable if it is going back to the court that was favorable to the registrants?
Because that court will have to issue a different ruling.
Greig L, the entire 7th Circuit (meaning all appellate judges) overturned the lower courts rulings on other issues but remanded on only one issue…the equal protection issue. While it may be considered good news for that remand, it’s bad news that all those judges ruled they way they did. Hope this helps.
Greig L, sorry. What I wrote may have been a little more confusing than I meant it to be. When the case went before the entire court of Appeals (meaning all judges), they (all judges) had a split ruling, which included a remand to the lower district court to consider only the equal protection issue. This means that even the appellate judges are divided about how to handle these cases
Got it now. Thanks.
So let me get this straight. Imposing registration on individuals whose offenses were committed in Indiana prior to SORA is punitive, but imposing them on individuals whose offenses were committed anywhere but Indiana at any time is not?
How is it that a black robe and/or a law degree prevents someone from seeing the flaw in that logic?
Once again one step forward three steps back. When will they realize this is real life not the game of life by milton bradly
Guess one has to look at much of this as a penalty faze. Each step of the registry by those that govern seem to be in their favor. SORA to my understand is just a sort of go between of rules that have a bias structure… I suppose one could say a middle person to give guidelines to these registry ordeals. I’m sure authorities can do anything they want when they entice or snag, or even pervert justice. To me that’s what a lot are doing perverting justice by manipulative craftiness. I’m sure a behavior factor is in there somewhere. Its all a bit screwed up.
And here is more proof that even murderers are more respected than those with a sex offense. In his final act as Governor, Cuomo commuted several people including for with murder charges. No one with any sex offenses.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cuomo-commutes-4-convicted-murderers-sentences-in-final-hours-as-governor/ar-AANEzcS?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
“A bit of a setback?”
This is a total defeat as per Larry Neely at NARSOL:
https://narsol.org/2021/08/seventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-overturns-previous-victory/