Statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial of certiorari.
Thank you to a member for sharing this:
In New York, criminal defendants who earn sufficient
good time credits before the end of their prison sentences
are entitled to conditional release. Defendants classified by
the State as “level three sex offenders,” however, must first
assure the State that they will not reside within 1,000 feet
of any school. In New York City, this is no easy task, and
the difficulties of finding a compliant residence can result
in defendants serving additional time in prison past the ex-
piration of their sentences. Because petitioner Angel Ortiz
was unable to identify any release address that satisfied the
State’s requirement, he spent over two additional years in-
carcerated when he should have been at liberty. Although
Ortiz’s petition does not satisfy this Court’s criteria for
granting certiorari, I write to emphasize that New York’s
residential prohibition, as applied to New York City, raises
serious constitutional concerns
In denying cert to NY State:
“Despite the empirical evidence, legislatures & agencies are often not receptive to the plight of people convicted of sex offenses & their struggles… the Constitution protects all people, & it prohibits the deprivation of liberty based solely on speculation & fear.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-7846_j5fl.pdf
Justice Sotomayor is assigned the 2nd Circuit Court (covering Connecticut, New York, and Vermont). I’m not aware of there being any notable challenges in the 2nd covering such issues as SORNA, Megan’s Law, s.o. registries, etc. 🤷🏻♂️
All three states have “registry lites” so there may not be much to challenge. In New York, most reporting is done by sending in a form within 10 days of the relevant change. I think Vermont has 10 year registration for many/most offenses. And none of these three states has statewide residency restrictions.
David…I was not aware of Such Assignments…..Here is a Listing for all to know!
Per, SupremeCourt.gov
Circuit Assignments
It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective November 20, 2020.
For the District of Columbia Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
For the First Circuit – Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)
For the Second Circuit – Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
For the Third Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)
For the Fourth Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
For the Fifth Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
For the Sixth Circuit – Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
For the Seventh Circuit – Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
For the Eighth Circuit – Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
For the Ninth Circuit – Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
For the Tenth Circuit – Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
For the Eleventh Circuit – Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
For the Federal Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.
…………Notice that the Chief Justice Controls to Key Aspects: The Federal Circuit and the DC Circuit!……..
So I assume that the case went against the registrant in the lower court?
It’s only a matter of time before this comes back before the supreme court.
Well Everyone…
Perhaps, WE May BE GETTING SOMEWHERE….
Once Again, a Jurist Who Gets IT!
This is First Dictum From The Highest Court in The Land That May Be A Turning Point; However, I Would Be Cautious.
IF RBG,Was Still There, Well, WE May Have Seen an Even Greater Statement Made…..(I am Not Being Political)
May These Words From The Highest Court Be Used To Further Our Causes!
Safe to say we have at least one sympathetic Justice willing to do the right thing with regard to these registry regimes. But… it’s discouraging that the guy didn’t get a nod from four Justices as required for a grant of Certiorari so the case could be heard by the full court.
Oremus.. as always.
My limited knowledge of legalese makes me feel like this is good. The judge is using some common sense and being realistic. Residency restrictions limit where one can live. That seriously has the potential to infringe on constitutional rights. I say potential because everyone’s situation is different. Hopefully this can be a step of many others that gets rid of bad laws.
Wow! Every year thousands of cert petitions are denied by the Supreme Court. It is extremely unusual for that Court to comment on why. Indeed, it is almost never done. While to us this may seem like just another legal paper to file away, the fact that Justice Sotomayor wrote a 7-page comment is huge, particularly in addressing an issue involving injustices to sex offenders.
“Although Ortiz’s petition does not satisfy this Court’s critera for granting certiorari, I write to emphazize that New York’s residential prohibiton, as applied to New York City, raises serious constitutional concerns.”
That came from a U.S. Supreme Court justice. For a moment, ponder the implications of her comments.
@ Ed C,
Much agreed. The very fact that this was posted in the Dissent…
” Courts, law enforcement agencies, and scholars all have acknowledged that residency restrictions do not reduce recidivism and may actually increase the risk of reoffending. For example, in striking down retroactive application of Michigan’s residency restriction, the Sixth Circuit found no evidence that “residential restrictions have any beneficial effect on recidivism rates”…
is huge and further, went on to acknowledge that the USSC will be addressing issues such as these without any doubt.
I’m… Impressed, actually.
SC, I just want to make a small clarifying comment to your insightful one. This wasn’t a dissent. It’s common for a Justice in the minority to write a dissenting opinion. It’s EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY rare for a Justice to write a very long and detailed comment to a case which they decided not to hear. That makes this all the more special.
Ah. Good catch, thank you for the correction and clarification!
I’d also like to point out to those who aren’t fluent in legalese that this Opinion basically outlines what needs to be done for a case (or cases) to reach the Court.
That is also a HUGE thing.
Fffff… Meant to put Comment, not opinion… Lol.
Yeah, the Supreme Court is most inclined to accept cert if the case 1) involves a split (disagreement) between circuit courts, 2) that it is an issue involving the U.S. Constitution, 3) is a spat between two states, or 4) a state case of U.S. constitutional dimension for which all state options have been exhausted.
This case only involved the state of New York. Justice Sotomayer advised the state to resolve the issue in accordance with the Constitution, and signaled that at least she would be open to a later cert petition. This is all very, very positive.
Regardless of your political leanings, we can all safely say that if the SCOTUS had 9 Sonia Sotomayors in 2003, FAC would not exist and we would all be carrying on with our semi-normal lives upon release. Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer were the 3 dissenters in Smith v. Doe, and Sotomayor is more liberal than Stevens and Breyer.
SHE GETS IT!
Now if only we can get a case in front of the justices to overturn Smith vs Doe destroying the registry. I wonder how much work we have as far as justices to rule against the government. I know Armoratto is out, I mean Alito although he’s like a martini without the woman.
Speaking of Justices
Biden just made his pick for Supreme court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-pick-black-woman.html
Source New York Times
I am starting to question allowing life time appointments for supreme court. Either way, you can gain so much power from knowing you can hardly be challenged on something. And once it is ruled, it is close to impossible to reverse.
Having said that, I was surprised when the abortion law was brought back up for another round of challenges. Depending on who you talk to, it is great news or horrible news.