State Department Files Motion to Dismiss IML Lawsuit
State Department Seeks to Retain International Megan’s Law
From http://all4consolaws.org/2018/04/state-department-files-motion-to-dismiss-iml-lawsuit/
The State Department filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit which challenges the International Megan’s Law (IML) on procedural grounds. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 25 in Los Angeles.
In its motion, the State Department asserts that its final rule issued in September 2016 is consistent with the IML and that its press release issued in October 2017 that included the language of the unique identifier to be added to the passports of some registrants was a website update, not a regulation. In addition, the State Department asserts that it already had authority to deny passport cards to registrants prior to passage of the IML.
“The State Department motion does not change our position that the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it issued a final rule implementing the IML without first requesting public comment,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “In addition, we continue to believe that the State Department completely lacks authority to deny passports cards to registrants.”
The IML lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District, of California on January 11, 2018. The agency’s response was initially due in March 2018, however, the agency requested and obtained a three-week extension for that response. Today was the deadline for the agency’s response.
You can read the Government’s memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss here: Memorandum in support of IML Dismis
Following are next steps in the case:
So the lawsuit filed by Janice is ultimately to get the State Dept to take the identifier off of our passports?
one of the objectives, correct.
andddd of course they did. They can’t just roll over and look soft. Although I wish they did.
Anyhow, best of luck to Janice/ACSOL and hope they get a win out of this for all of us.
The state department they are talking about here is the U.S. state department (DOS) ? Didn’t they say something at some point that IML wasn’t really needed because they were already sending out notifications to other countries. Or something along those lines ? Could of swear I read something like that a while back.
Hello all, I am really getting tired of these new laws popping up to add more fuel to the fire. I understand taking preventative measures and keeping children safe but I am dumbfounded on how a “criminal act” (I say with quotes for those who suffer because the wrong charges were issued and they should not even be on the list) which happened 20 years ago can continue to be re-punished over and over again because of new laws. I know I’m preaching to the choir but why doesn’t ex post facto apply or what feels like double jeopardy? Where does it say in the statues SOs are subject to any future law someone can come up with?
As long as the courts consider registration to be a CIVIL liability, it can’t be considered ex-post facto, since that only applies to CRIMINAL penalties.
Thank you for the response. I actually never realized the list was a civil issue. Which sends me to another question…doesn’t a violation of someone who stops registering send them straight to jail? If so, how can that be if it’s a civil issue? I’m sure this has been discussed before. If someone knows which topic I should look for on this site I’d appreciate it.
A civil penalty cannot be enforced by a penal law i thought. The penalty is civil but the penalty is enforced under a law enforcement mandate
I’ve always argued that it’s ridiculous to face criminal penalties for violation of civil liability. Legislators are saying that the imposition of responsibility to register, by itself, represents a civil liability. It’s only when you don’t do it that it becomes a crime. If you lose money in a civil law suit or get a parking ticket, and then you refuse to pay, and ignore (or don’t receive or forget about) court orders to appear before a judge re: the matter, you can be arrested.