ID: ACLU lawsuit over anti-sodomy law, use of sex offender registry settled
The state of Idaho settled an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit Thursday, challenging the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law that has historically been used to condemn and punish LGBT+ people,”.
Last year a federal judge ruled the registration was unconstitutional and required the state to remove two of the three men from the registry. After the ruling, the state of Idaho appealed. In oral argument, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then strongly suggested the state settle the case.
A legal director representing the plaintiffs says the men have demonstrated irreparable harm by the registration. “Where our clients live, work and travel have been restricted; they have lost jobs and family connections. The state settled this case because they knew we would ultimately prevail after our win in federal court last year; there was no reason to drag on a losing battle that would cost taxpayers even more money defending unconstitutional laws,” said Aadika Singh, ACLU of Idaho legal director, representing plaintiffs.
So, no appellate ruling that the registry is unconstitutional because the parties settled. Am I reading this correctly?
That was not at issue in the case.
Let me quote the text of this article: “Last year a federal judge ruled the registration was unconstitutional and required the state to remove two of the three men from the registry.”
How is the registry being ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge not an issue in this case?
The registration of the men on the basis of their sodomy conviction.
The quote refers to the registration of those two men was unconstitutional. Not the registry.
The SO registry is unconstitutional. Registrars have became homeless, jobless and leaving families. What does this institute for Human Beings? Abolish the S O registry.
Ughhhhhh
I wish we would have had that day in court. However, odd that the registry is “Punishment” if you are put on it wrongly such as these clients, but for the rest of us with other charges it is not? Why the double talk/speak from the courts? Did they just slip up? What the fudge?
Sounds like a precedent’s opportunity lost? But what do I know, I am just some smuck who has been on the registry since the 90’s. I refuse to say I will be on it for ever because I denounce that negativity.
Be interesting if this can help our (Those on the registry) cause in some way.
So sorry i have to add this as it just came to me
So, question. HOW did they know they were committing sodomy? Did the cops peek in their window? Were the men having sex in a gay bar and undercover agents were present? Were the guys in the woods? Just because two men are boyfriends, doesn’t mean they are having sex.
My point is, there must have been some incentive to go after these guys unless there was some public act taking place seen by a neighbor, caught on film or a sting?
“Where our clients live, work and travel have been restricted; they have lost jobs and family connections.”
Could this case emphasizing those effects, be of any use in an expost facto case?
“A 2003 U.S. supreme court decision in Lawrence v. Texas found that anti-sodomy laws, including the “Crime Against Nature” law violates constitutional protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite this, the law continued to be enforced in Idaho.”
So, it took 19 years for the state to be forced to abide by the law??????
Long story short, this ruling means nothing to us?
Bottom line is this case doesn’t help us.
We don’t know your situation so we can’t comment on whether it helps you or not. If you are on the Idaho registry for sodomy, this helps you greatly.