PA: HUGE WIN!!! – SORNA Declared Unconstitutional
YES, you read that correctly. A Pennsylvania Trial Court has declared SORNA Unconstitutional.
The court wrote, “we find that SORNA is unconstitutional as a legislative scheme in both its use of a constitutionally infirm irrebuttable presumption and the punitive effects of its registration and notification provisions, as well as in its application to this Defendant, who has a strong support structure, is educated, is working, is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation, and is highly unlikely to reoffend”
The Court also found that “based on the evidence of scientific and academic consensus presented, we find that SORN laws do not have the effect on recidivism and public safety anticipated by the Legislature, and that they are not rationally related to the purposes for which they were enacted.” This is one of the first cases (to our knowledge) where the scientific and academic studies have been considered and used in formulating the court’s decision.
PA Torsilieri SORNA Opinion 2022
A copy of the Order follows, and before you ask, NO, this is not binding on Florida.
Note also that this is from an ELECTED judge, and a Republican.
Now perhaps other courts will follow suit and let the domino effect begin.
so let me guess this judge will soon lose their job and this will be appealed to the higher courts which will systematically demolish it and sweep it away.. I remember something similar in Michigan in around 2006ish? it lasted for 3 days i think..the government doesnt like you taking away their ability to create a slave and abuse class..
Any takers?
I agree with “obvious answers”.
The mob is going to tar and feather this judge and demand that this be overturned.
It’s nice that someone had the courage to speak the truth, though.
None of the judges who ruled against the registry have lost their jobs or faced repercussions. Where are we even getting that?
Ok, even if they don’t tar and feather the judges, the legislature will simply rewrite the law just like they did in Michigan.
When it comes to registries, people don’t understand justice or mercy – just vigilantism and hatred.
The moment someone speaks up with a voice of reason they are shouted down. (I’m waiting for the PA legislature to shout down the PA Supreme Court by passing a newer and harsher registry with a wink-wink – just like in Michigan.)
Let’s talk again in, say, July of 2023 and see what life is like for registered citizens in PA. I hope it’s better, but I am not holding my breath.
JJJJ is right. There is still a registry in Pennsylvania. People are still on it, unconstitutionally or not. I’m still on Michigan’s unconstitutional registry. Every state still has a registry. It stinks.
I must ask…how can a policy in one state be unconstitutional, yet constitutional in another state? The last time I checked we are the United States. This is just a typical example of what is tearing this nation apart. Citizens being held to laws and policies from state to state, county to county, city to city, town to town, etc. It is also an example of politicians who choose to ignore facts if they can sell an agenda based on falsehoods. Unfortunately, it is uneducated voters who put them in office.
I think its the same as when SCOTUS makes a decision in any case and you have the majority verdict, and then a dissenting opinion. They interrupt the laws differently. Same laws, same issue. Different opinions of what it says.. Its Sad but true.
Some read the constitution for intent. And some read the constitution for what it actually states and not the intent.
Each state has its own Constitution.
This was a state court case that analyzed the constitutionality against the PA Constitution.
It’s extremely persuasive though, so it’s not like this is meaningless for anyone outside of PA. It’s just a HUGE win for the Litigant in the case, INCREDIBLY meaningful for anyone inside PA and persuasive ammunition for anyone outside who is fighting a similar battle.
It is essentially a jurisdictional question stemming from the federalism built into the U.S. Constitution. That is the same provision allowing both state and federal criminal charges for the same actions.
What I found encouraging is that the court: 1) found SORNA unconstitutional both facially and as applied; 2) it invoked the irrebuttable presumption argument; 3) it declared SORNA as punishment that violates the federal 8th Amendment; 4) SORNA results in criminal sentences that exceed statutory maximums; and 5) the Court actually considered recidivism data.
This decision was rendered by a trial court and is probably already being appealed by the state. Prosecutors definitely don’t want that decision to stand. The Court’s conclusions in this decision will be extremely helpful in future lawsuits filed in all states. I intend to look through my state’s constitution for provisions that parallel those in Pennsylvania.
FAC notes that it is not binding on Florida. I suspect is not binding anywhere other than the jurisdiction of that court, possibly just for that case.
But it is hugely important nonetheless!!!
Could this be the first domino to fall??
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ THE JUDGE’S RULING IS TRULY REMARKABLE!! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Great news, was this the supreme court in PA? if not that’s where the state will go next, if it is here is a case other attorneys can use nationwide to start defeating the prosecutors who keep saying it is not punitive
This is great news! Although it isn’t binding for the state of Florida, it is certainly persuasive authority and a great light shedding start.
OMG, it’s in response to the direction of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court!
This ruling would be binding on all of Pennsylvania, right?!! 😲👏🏻😃🤗
(Apologies for my overwhelming enthusiasm, but Pennsylvania is my home state!!)
Its not a class action case. Its only binding on the plaintiff, but obviously will stand as case laws for others in that State.
Its a good start.
@disgusted in Michigan, so this one isn’t a class action, like ours is here Michigan. Hopefully, Ms Aukerman sees this ruling and can add it or at least bring it up as are 4th lawsuit moves through the court. I just hope he makes a judgement soon and grants an injunction for now, until the case is decided.
The order declares SORNA “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to this Defendant”. Wouldn’t that mean it applies to everyone in that state?
No, it doesn’t apply to everyone in that state, only the named litigant. In order for this opinion to apply to everyone there, a class action would need to be filed with the same opinion being handed down.
That’s why we have a class action here in Michigan. Our third lawsuit was a class action because the positive ruling in our second one only applied to the plaintiffs (6 I think) who brought the lawsuit.
I can say with absolute certainty that it will only be a matter of a few weeks before a class action is filed in Pennsylvania based on this decision.
Watch for it.
Has our nation gone so WOKE that the Constitution applies to some citizens and not all citizens? This must have our Founding Fathers turning over in their graves.
I’m old enough to remember when ‘woke’ referred to ‘awareness of racial disparities.’
And it’s true that racial disparities exist in the registry. But the above is a use of the term ‘woke’ with which I am unfamiliar. And the new acronym, ‘WOKE,’ in all caps, is now state law, but no one I know even knows what those letters stand for. I guess we’ll just start using it as a general putdown.
“When a court holds that a law is facially unconstitutional, it is holding that the law cannot be enforced at all, and not merely as applied to the situation of a particular plaintiff.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/954/facial-challenges
Disgusted in Michigan, I disagree that the Torsilieri case would not apply to everyone in Pennsylvania if the PA Supreme Court rules in favor of Torsilieri. The trial court clearly stated that SORNA is “Facially Unconstitutional” and as applied to the defendant. “Facially” is important to note because “facially Unconstitutional” means that there is no set of circumstances by which it could be constitutional, in which would apply to all Pennsylvania residents “and” the defendant. When SORNA 1 was declared Unconstitutional for violating the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and state Constitutions in 2017, our legislation enacted Subchapter I, known as Act 10 and 29 to apply to pre-SORNA registered offenders. However, even in that new law, it has the same language as all the previous laws that deem individuals as high risk and also states that Subchapter I was enacted in response to the Muniz decision, meaning that it was binding on all PA citizens who,s offenses occurred prior to December 20, 2012. However, Subchapter I here in PA follows the provisions of their prior Megan’s Law 3 statutes, in which still cannot meet constitutional standards of due process. When SORNA 1 was enacted, it included the Sunset provisions setting forth the expiration of the prior version of Megan’s Law 3. See: 42 PA. C.S.A. Section 9799.41. A year later after the expiration date our PA Supreme rule that Megan’s Law 3 was Unconstitutional in its entirely because it violated the single subject rule of the PA Constitution and was omnibus legislation. See: Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603, 615 (PA. 2013). The crucial point to understand is that when SORNA 1 was ruled Unconstitutional for pre-sorna offenders, every pre-sorna offender should of been removed from the registry and not a new law enacted to pre-offender, especially with or identical languages of the prior SORNA 1. When the legislature reveals a criminal statute or otherwise removes the state’s condemnation from conduct that was formerly deemed criminal, this action requires the dismissal of a pending criminal proceeding charging such conduct. See: In re Dandridge, 462 PA. 67, 337 A.2d 885 (1975).
Yes, absolutely, the hope is that Pennsylvania’s Superior Court ALSO issued a decision that it’s unconstitutional. The advantage of class action status would have simply forced the state to remedy the situation automatically, without requirement that each individual has to petition the courts for relief. But I have already read that cases raised in Pennsylvania seeking to cite this trial court ruling have been unsuccessful. It takes a Superior Court ruling to create binding precedent. They determine the constitutionality of laws in their state.
How could the legal system get so screwed up? What’s unconstitutional in the nation is constitutional in a state? This makes no sense whatsoever in a nation called ‘United States’. It is difficult to identify anything united.
Bob, courts rule differently. I think that the only reason that the state of Georgia didn’t go to the 11th circuit when their draconian new statutes were pimp slapped circa 2010 is that because they got beat up even worse by their own state Supreme Court I honestly don’t think the current 11th circuit with the rules in the same manner which was to say that most of those subsequent restrictions they were passed between say 2003 in 2009 were subject to ex post facto. As a result of that decision, the Georgia state legislature of the time totally rewrote their statutes so that the most draconian restrictions only applied to people convicted after they were originally passed and they put in removal, provisions, that the courts actually do rather than just giving lip service to. They also eliminated the requirement that you turn over your Internet information as best as I can tell. I think that’s what we’re seeing in Pennsylvania. It may not actually be ironic that these states are more likely to listen to their own courses. They are to the federal courts service we have seen in Michigan and Ohio. But we also seen Ohio attempt to make some creative interpretations of the courts decision as it applies to out of state registrants, even after they got slapped by there on the Supreme Court a couple of times. I tell my family that it’s ironic that for someone like me who was convicted along time ago, the crazy red state of Georgia may be one of the easiest places for me to live then I can actually afford it. I can’t afford to go to the unattractive parts of Vermont anymore and I have no idea what the actual situation is in places like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, even if I could afford to live there. Pennsylvania is sounding slightly will have to see how it actually falls out.
Class action sounds like something I would join in on for sure!
Can you elaborate please? How is it at the direction of the PA Supreme Court? Thanks.
Its a Pennsylvania State court decision that appears to have already been through their Supreme Court, because the judge frequently makes statements that he must do something as directed by their S.C., or that he is bound by a ruling from their S.C.
Its all in the opinion and very simple to comprehend. If you haven’t read it, click here: PA Torsilieri SORNA Opinion 2022
That is the way I see it too, Disgusted in Michigan, the Supreme Court provided a bright pathway for the lower Court to follow and the Court cites those pathways in their decision.
YAY!!!! Something to be glad for and to use as a source for hope!!!!
Perhaps we are witnessing the biggest indicator the tide is turning?
The walls of Jericho came tumbling down not because the children of Israel marched around the walls but that they kept marching! PA is called the Keystone State. Perhaps this is the one that will start all of the walls crumbling!
I am not sure the state has recourse. This case was remanded back to the original court by the PA Supreme Court. I would imagine if they appealed to the USA SCOTUS It would not be heard just as Muniz.
Cases are often reappealed after a remand to a lower court. It’s not final until the state Supreme Court either denies any further appeals, or decides to take up the case itself. Suppose that Pennsylvania remands a similar case to a different trial court, and that judge ruled exactly the opposite. What then? It takes the state Supreme Court to set the law of the land. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court should simply have taken up this case itself and set firm guidelines that ALL of its trial courts MUST follow.
Great news. Finally someone is going after the jugular vein of this unconstitutional beast. Good to know there is a little sanitary in an insane world. Though I’m sure it will be contested, so we will have to wait to see what happens from here. They determined it’s unconstitutional, it’s punishment, it’s not safety oriented, it’s discriminatory. What else do you need to know about it?
In fact, it appears as if it would be binding ONLY in PA!
Yes! So it’s very good news for Pennsylvania and encouragement for the rest of us to do whatever they did in Pennsylvania!
I definitely don’t mean to poo-poo this. It’s a great win for sure, but what are the odds it’s going to be appealed to a higher court and the higher court will support the lower courts findings? Probably very great.
IMHO it’s sort of like doing a victory dance over getting a 1st down when you’re already down 100 to nothing late in the 4th quarter. It may have been a nice nudge forward but it’s a long long ways before any real relief is brought to the masses who are impacted by this law.
The way I view this is its will absolutely be appealed. The benefit I see here is that since they specifically quoted studies on effectiveness the higher court will have to either consider or specify a reason for not doing so.
This could be a domino moment if it is appealed to federal level and wins. This decision probably has the largest potential I’ve seen so far to have a meaningful chance of changing things.
I think you meant to say overturned by a higher court, not supported.
You have many valid points. This case is only applicable to the litigant, and does not apply to anyone else in Pennsylvania, although I do think a class action there will probably be next.
Yes, it would go to the federal court next, if the State chooses to appeal, and potentially SCOTUS, should they decide to hear it if it gets to them. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is subjective, but I see many courts now looking at registries as BS, and I don’t think it will be long before SCOTUS thinks the same thing.
The way I read it, the case was remanded to this lower Court by the Supreme Court with some strong suggestions on how the lower Court should rule.
That was the state supreme court, not SCOTUS.
There is no higher court for a ruling on the Pennsylvania constitution, which this was.
Dennis, research the case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court AFTER the registrant had already previously WON his claim. Why would they do that if they agreed with the trial courts earlier decision? The state brought this current appeal. I doubt that they are done. Their Supreme Court has not affirmed the decision.
They can continue challenging it, just like Kansas defied the U.S. Supreme Court and fought tooth and nail for over two years to keep from having to release Matthew Limon. But they will lose.
This judge’s ruling is like a breath of fresh air for those who hope that sanity still exists in the world.
Sadly, insanity is so pervasive that I’m not sure how much traction this will provide for reform. Even so, the lives this touches will have to waste untold years and likely the cost of future lawsuits before it ever (if ever) has a tangible effect for them.
(I use the term insanity because anyone who still believes in the registry after reading this opinion must be out of their right mind.)
Keep up the hope guys and keep pressing for change. it took about 100 years from the emancipation proclamation before the black community saw their watershed moment of reform take place (and at the expense of much bloodshed and many lives lost). Perhaps we, or more likely our children, will see a day free from this cancer that is the sex offender registry.
Well, that’s great but I am not having children and I am concerned with the one life I have to live at the moment. Don’t bother calling me selfish as that is what today’s “woke” BS is all about.
In 100 years mankind (can you say “man”kind anymore?) as we know it will be either gone or so shi^^y that it will make today seem like a picnic – either way I don’t care as I will not be living.
I am sickened that those labelled as sex offenders are being used as pawns for corrupt politicians and for emotional manipulation of the masses. 🙁
Wow so what’s that now three states are saying SORNA is unconstitutional (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alaska). Do we know when the deadline is for Pennsylvania to appeal the decision, or if they are going to appeal.
Michigan has not ruled SORNA to be unconstitutional, only that our previous version of the registry, as applied to class members, was unconstitutional. We are in court again stating our current registry is also still unconstitutional, because the legislature did nothing to address the ex post facto claims, among other claims.
Disgusted in Michigan is exactly correct. It took 9 years of appeals to rule Michigan’s law unconstitutional. They simply wrote a new onerous law, which will also likely take years to appeal. I suspect that Pennsylvania had their appeal prepared before the judge ruled. The Michigan situation should worry everyone on a registry in any state. As it stands now, it would appear that a state legislature can simply write a new law and make it retroactive whenever a law is struck down.
The only state that I can recall seeing just rolling over after being hammered by the courts was Georgia. But they were hammered not only by the federal District Court but also by the state Supreme Court. That was an ex post facto decision at the state level. If I recall, the Federal court decision might’ve only addressed the issue of people being forced to move because a child oriented business opened within 1000 feet of them after they had moved into their house of course. The state Supreme Court said that all of the stuff was subject to ex post facto restrictions. That really didn’t mean anything for anyone convicted after 2008 or so . They are dealing with some of the horses restrictions in the land. But going back from there every couple of years you get some of those restrictions stripped away until you get back to around 2003. If you were convicted before that, you just have your original 1990s restrictions and nothing more. What they also did there in 2010 was to pass a law providing for legal recourse so that you can be removed from the registry after a time certain. They also removed any requirement to turn over your Internet identifier information and such. I think a number of us have discovered that’s a lot bigger deal than those people might think. It’s weird to think of going to Georgia to get off the sex offender registry, but if you have an older conviction, it’s probably one of the better places. The only place I can think of that’s better is Vermont where if you qualify for tenure relief it’s automatic. If you’re beyond the 10 years, you don’t even have to register.
In Maryland, if your offense pre-dated Sept. 1995, you don’t have to register at all. However, if you haven’t been registered for the amount of time that federal SORNA requires, you may get bugged by the feds. This was a Maryland Supreme Court decision, so I hope the rules don’t change again if the current judges get replaced some day.
This is great news for everyone living in Pennsylvania, but this is a state trial court finding Pennsylvania SORNA (not federal SORNA) unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already done more than once. So this is just another in a long string of victories for Pennsylvanians but has little practical impact on people living in other states.
But we should celebrate that someone got relief, no?
Yes 100%
and then we wait for our turns.
1) What wonderful news. The Court’s analysis was spot on.
2)Wow, Dr. McCleary got his arse handed to him by the court!
Good news indeed. I hope we can start taking these cases and learning from them. Cases seem to be strongest when there is one named defendent (as opposed to several Does), who brings a simple case asking the Court to reckon with one maybe two questions in a facial challenge against the STATE. From what i am reading we seem to be experiencing some issues bringing cases againt Rick Swearingen personally. If by the time it is appropriate for me and for our cause as a whole and if no other cases have been brought, i’ll hire Ron Kleiner and gladly file a case myself, no problem. Wish I could do it today.
So even if PA SORNA is abolished [never happen], wouldn’t the PA registered citizens still be under the aegis of Federal SORNA?
Also, what’s the latest on Michigan? Should I pack my bags yet?
Yes, the obligations under a State registry scheme and federal are separate.
But doesn’t the federal sorna have an impossiblebility defense? If the state constitution determines that having you on the registry is unconstitutional and they won’t put you on there, how are you supposed to “register” On the federal list? Do they have some kind of new provision does that
Unless the Federal government sets up a federal registering facility you simply cannot register at all.
Since 1992, the Supreme Court has ruled the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law.
Therefore, if there is no way for you to register in a state you cannot be arrested by the federal government and held in contempt.
The federal government could set up a registering facility in states where sorna is deemed unconstitutional, but states frown on the federal government getting involved in matters where the state has made judgement in opposition.
With this newest round of rules and such, do you actually believe that the feds will not arrest someone and force them to prove that it was impossible for them to register? Remember that in many instances, these “registration violations” are strict liability offenses.
There are many states that do not strictly adhere to sorna.
In Ohio, sorna was stopped from being retroactively applied to people under Megan’s law and declared a breach to the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine, (State vs. Bodyke) and everyone that was pre-sorna was put back on Megan’s law even though sorna replaced it.
Now I haven’t seen or heard of any federal agents coming to Ohio to arrest those who have been relieved of the Adam Walsh act obligations because of the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling and that was 12 years ago.
The federal government has a lot more better things to do than to look for people in states where federal laws have been deemed unnecessary or unconstitutional and prosecute them because the 10th Amendment as judged in 1992 clearly states that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law.
So if the feds already know it is impossible for you to register in a state, why would they come and arrest you for what they already know you can’t do because state law prohibits it??
I really want to talk with you .
As i want to move to Georgia
But i am afraid .
Some states are really Hard on SO. The lewd and lascivious is from 1999. Comoleted everything and no longer on probation or classes or anything.
Just have to Register once a year.
Can you DM MSG me please.
I value your time . And it is very important please.
We are scared to move to geogia.
But really want to .
God Bless. Thank you.
A registrant seeking advice on moving to GA should contact a GA attorney such as Mark Yurachek or Brandon Thomas.
If you move to Georgia, as best as I can tell, the only restrictions that you would be under would be the ones that require you to register. No residency restrictions, no work restrictions and apparently no requirement to submit your Internet identifiers, etc. to anyone. There are a number of lawyers that handle removal cases. I haven’t talked to in the oven for a couple of years. Back in like 2019, the prices range from $3000-$10,000. If you have been off probation for 10 years, that makes life easier I think
This judge is raised an interesting question. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court excepts these findings, then doesn’t that mean that the current provisions of SORNA cannot be applied to anyone who was convicted before it was passed? Or in portly for some of us would it mean that the old 10 year rule in Pennsylvania must be applied to everyone as opposed to applying the “which ever is greater“ standard. In the case of Florida, that’s technically a “life sentence“ and in most of our cases well beyond the permitted sentence for our offenses likely both in Pennsylvania and Florida. Of course, there’s always the risk like in Michigan and other places that the state will merely ignore the rulings of their own court. It’s ironic that one of the few states that it seems to have fully accepted what their courts ordered them to do was Georgia, one of the strictest states of all. If you’re convicted today or if you were convicted after 2009, you’re hosed. But if, like me, you were convicted before the Georgia legislature started ramping up the requirements and punishment for registrants, then you have virtually no restrictions including, it would appear, any obligation at all to turn over your Internet information to the state. What you can get off the registry in Georgia and they actually seem to be letting people off, even out of stators, using Georgia standards not Florida standards. Obviously, the wheels of justice turn slowly because this case is apparently arising out of the Muniz case, Which is what? Six years old? Shades of Michigan.
I still dont know how so’s still got dis credited from being able to vote. You can rob a bank and still live next to it. You can car jack a car and still own a car. You can jack a car with a kid in it and i believe you can still be around kids. Im serious when i say if I hit the lottery I would put so much money towards the best attorneys to fight for us. I am so tired of a double sided coin here. Are politicians so afraid if felon and especially so’s could vote their the vote could be so swaying? Please correct me if you feel im wrong
I think it’s a grave mistake to assume that the defendant in this case has actually won anything yet. The case was remanded back to the trial court by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with instructions for the trial judge to make further determinations. There is nothing indicating that the state can’t appeal this decision. They likely will. In the final analysis, only a state Supreme Court ruling that a statute is unconstitutional will carry any precedential weight. And even such a ruling could be nullified by a federal court. And I think it’s unlikely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will look favorably on a trial court taking it upon itself to declare a state law unconstitutional.
He has won a tremendous amount. The PA registry was declared unconstitutional facially and as applied to the defendant. Are people here not reading the order at the end of the opinion?
Gerald, I don’t believe that a federal court, even SCOTUS, can overrule a state spreme court’s interpretation of state law or the state constitution. That is unless somehow the decision is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
As to the decision itself, I was flabbergasted that the judge provided such a detailed and articulate analysis of recidivism data and challenged the legislature’s finding of dangerousness. That last issue is usually just blown off by the courts under “rational basis review.” As FAC#3 pointed out the judge declared PA-SORNA to be FACIALLY invalid, as well as being punishment akin to unending probation. The decision has a real “WOW” factor, and the analysis will be extremely useful to everyone.
This judge is a Republican woman who holds an elected position. I applaud her political courage and judicial integrity.
My main point is that this was NOT a decision by a state Supreme Court. It was by a local trial court. Trial courts are bound to follow their state laws as interpreted by their state Supreme Court. A trial court judge can’t rule a state law unconstitutional. He or she doesn’t have that authority. Pennsylvania’s appellate courts can completely overturn the decision. There is no victory until the game is over.
Right, it ain’t over till it’s over. A trial court can indeed rule a law unconstitutional, it just doesn’t have the final word. I originally presumed the state would invariably appeal the decision. On second thought, it may prefer to allow the issue to languish at the trial court level where the decision is merely persuasive and not precedential.
Since the PA Supreme Court directed the trial court to analyze SORNA’s constitutionality, the state may not want to risk an adverse decision by the appellate or supreme courts. They might just write off Mr. Torsilieri as a singular loss. This will be interesting.
I didn’t articulate my point very well. Federal courts cannot nullify any state court’s decision based solely on state law. So the feds will have no role in this process.
Ed C, the thing about this case is that the offender won his claim in that same trial court a couple of years ago. This current ruling is pursuant to the state of Pennsylvania’s appeal of that decision. There is no reason to suspect that they are going to stop appealing that decision now. Pennsylvania’s courts are already filling up with others trying to make the same claim based on this decision. It will end up back in their Supreme Court, and that Court will have to make a final decision on the matter.
He won in trial, appellate court AFFIRMED his win and remanded for judicial decisions as to specific issues. Trial court decided those issues on behalf of the Supreme Court. We dissected this case in another post. Why are people still debating this?
I will quote the conclusion of thr Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanding the case to the trial court by copy and paste from the actual ruling itself:
As is apparent from the trial court findings, the evidence presented by Appellee
provides a colorable argument to debunk the settled view of sexual offender recidivation
rates and the effectiveness of tier-based sexual offender registration systems underlying
the General Assembly’s findings as well as various decisions of this Court and the United
States Supreme Court. Nevertheless, as the trial court did not have the benefit of the
opposing science, if any, the evidence currently in the record does not provide a sufficient
basis to overturn the legislative determination. Accordingly, we conclude that the proper
remedy is to remand to the trial court to provide both parties an opportunity to develop
arguments and present additional evidence and to allow the trial court to weigh that
evidence in determining whether Appellee has refuted the relevant legislative findings
supporting the challenged registration and notification provisions of Revised Subchapter
H.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order declaring the
registration requirements of Revised Subchapter H of SORNA unconstitutional and
remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
And earlier in the decision, their Supreme Court specifically stated:
Unfortunately, the procedural posture of this case prevents tidy resolution of the
matter by this Court. While Appellee presented a colorable argument that the General
Assembly’s factual presumptions have been undermined by recent scientific studies, we
are unable to affirm the trial court’s several conclusions finding Revised Subchapter H
unconstitutional.
Their Supreme Court did NOT affirm the trial court’s decision. If they had affirmed it, there would be no need for remand. They may eventually agree with the trial judge and rule accordingly, resulting in a huge change in that State’s law, but the trial court’s opinion here is just that, his opinion. It is not binding precedent. It is not authorative. It is still subject to appeal. It is simply wrong to think that the trial court;s ruling is the end of the matter. And the Pennsylvania Legislature will certainly do its best to try to circumvent any ruling adverse to their laws. I urge everyone who is interested to simply read the last 4 or 5 pages of that Supreme Court of Pennsylvania opinion. There is no finality in the case yet.
https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/06/Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf
It seems most likely to me after reading many articles that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded this case for the major purpose of amassing more legal argument to use in a future sweeping ruling on the overall constitutionality of the Pennsylvania law. They already ruled 5 years ago that it couldn’t be applied retroactively for offenses committed before the law’s passage in 2012. But ANY such important ruling has to come from a state’s highest court in order to carry any authoritative weight. It took 5 years from the law’s passage to have the retroactive portion ruled unconstitutional. It has taken 10 years since the law was enacted for this case to reach their Supreme Court. What happens if Pennsylvania follows Michigan’s lead and simply enacts a brand new law to replace the old one? And it took appeals to the federal court for Michigan to get that decision. And unless you can afford a lawyer, it’s hard to get relief even when a court decision is favorably to your own situation. They don’t ordinarily automatically remove you from the registry, even if you shouldn’t have been placed on it in the first place. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn’t given their final decision yet. It will be interesting to see what they say. I’m sure that it will be a lengthy opinion.
SCOTUS cannot/will not overrule the PA State Supreme Court should they rule in our favor BECAUSE the issue deals with the PA Constitution and not the US Constitution. If it were to rule they would have to say that no PA citizen has a right to a good reputation under any circumstance. The Federal Constitution has no provisions dealing with reputation in it. Therefore, Amendment X of the Federal Constitution kicks in leaving SCOTUS out of jurisdiction.
The whole idea that the word “reputation” magically makes Pennsylvania’s case unique is flawed. The state will simply argue that the offender lost the right to good reputation through his own illegal actions, just as an offender loses his rights to liberty when he breaks the law. The truth is that we should all hope that more state cases make it to the US Supreme Court so that they will revisit the issue in total, and stop allowing the government to persecute people with a system that serves no purpose other than to inflict additional punishment.
I see this as the START to what we all (granted some longer than others) have been fighting for!! This is just the beginning of a movement in the correct direction for justice-hopefully sometime soon it will follow suit in other places/states- finally!! Thank Goodness-
It’s never binding on Florida. A win in Florida would be a nice change.
You don’t need a class action for a law to be ruled facially unconstitutional for everyone, as this ruling demonstrates.
I agree with Jacob; as it is written into law (facially), it is unconstitutional. Now, what does that mean for the state’s SORNA moving forward? Only time will tell.
One of my favorites, page 13, “The Commonwealth has argued that the fact that the amendments to SORNA include an opportunity for some offenders to petition to the court to be removed from SORNA’s registration and notification provisions after twenty-five (25) years means that SORNA’s presumption as to future dangerousness is not irrebuttable. This is illusory.”
Yep, she (the judge) gets it.
Oh, page 20, a single paragraph, yes, courts before claimed it as punishment, so do we.
Google is going to start sending me ads for lawyers looking up all this jargon like “effectuate.”
OMG, BRAnDed! Between Google and lawyers, you are most certainly doomed! I’ll pray for you! 😂😁
I would also caution people not to prematurely interpret the views of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court based on this remand. A case that their Supreme Court decided AFTER this remand order actually ruled that the Pennsylvania law IS constitutional.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2022/164-mda-2021.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1q7P_2On5AhWHAzQIHabIDsAQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2y6CcE8Bw150kdt2m_LzKy
That Court may well be considering declaring it completely unconstitutional, but it hasn’t happened yet.
With all due respect to all. I have been reading all kinds of comments from everywhere but I am yet to see anyone talking about the devastating effect of this so-called Civil scheme on the families of those on the registry. they are not convicted of anything and yet just because they live in the same home with someone on the registry they are subjected to all kinds of abuse verbal and emotional and their lives have to conform to the life of the person on the registry ( no vacations, invasion of privacy, etc).
Doesn’t that registry punish and violates their rights also?
Should not the registry also be challenged on those grounds also?
If you think we’re ignoring registered families, hit the back button, scroll down to the thermometer that says Non Registrant Collateral Consequences Challenge, and see how much funds we have raised for that challenge. You might also consider the many posts on this forum that come from loved ones (parents, spouses, significant others).
Non-Registrant Collateral Consequences Challenge
Is displayed at the bottom of the webpage . Yes people have mentioned it but it’s a slow process. I’m not the best person to relayed the information to you but there is more than one lawsuit in the works and I believe Does versus Swearinger/ (who ever the new guy is) are taking precedent over the non-registrant collateral consequence challenge, waiting on the verdict to see how that one goes first before filling the Non-Registrant Collateral Consequences Challenge lawsuit. I could be wrong but once in awhile the pacer info will change and we creep towards an outcome.
The screen name I have is in protest to the justice or just us system and not the website. I think is the website is actually full of good information and updates.
Keep up the good work.
The SORA is a political thing. It’s definitely a purnishment. These people have Done their Time, as well as Murderers. What’s the difference?
https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2023/01/judge-to-weigh-sex-offender-registration/ Looks like this court decision is about to get tested. Hopefully a positive outcome opens up more opportunities.
Eugene
Good info. What state is this in?
Pennsylvania. It could be pretty big since their using the 95% argument.
And would that case even be necessary if the Torsilieri decision carried any real weight in Pennsylvania? What if this trial judge decides just the opposite? Again, I just want to caution everyone that only a state’s Supreme Court can rule whether their laws are unconstitutional or not. That just hasn’t happened yet. They have upheld their registry law in the past. And if they ever do strike it down, who knows what their legislature will replace it with. We offenders in Michigan are still on the state’s sex offender registry, even though the law that was in place when my crime was committed was completely abolished by the courts. Pennsylvania’s Superior Court could take up the issue immediately and resolve it, but no one can tell them when to do it. But until they do, I suspect that every defendant for a sex crime is going to raise that same issue with the trial courts. And if you have a public defender, you are probably out of luck.
If sorna is unconstitutional in one State, it should be unconstitutional Nation Wide. What is Wrong with this Country that we call the US?
Pennsylvania has a unique right to reputation that is found only in the Pennsylvania Constitution. I urge other states to petition for a right to reputation be added to their states Bill of Rights. Megan’s Law/SORNA falls facially unconstitutional in Pennsylvania due to Article 1,Section 1 of the State Constitution.
Folks follow me on this one. All of us are here to break down the sex registry and to eliminate it as much as possible. I made a commit on here of two wrongs making a right or don’t make a right. One wonders about that one.
I looked it up and here’s what I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right
Seems to me that many of you all can understand this logic that is conflicting mankind today in many ways. During one’s probation period in many cases the parole officer will ask you to sign a wavier to say you knew you were talking to a teen age girl. If one signed that wavier than that is a death sentence and a con. If one didn’t sign than there is hope.
I’m sure many should check into this as why would they want one to sign a wavier to say they were talking to a teenage girl when they were really not. Case dismissed …
Have people here actually read the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on this case? That supreme court DID vacate the trial court’s holding that their sex offender registry was unconditional, and remanded it back to the trial court for further fact finding. Scroll down to the conclusion of the decision. You can find it in PDF format at this page:
https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/2020/06/16/commonwealth-v-torsilieri-pa-2020/
That supreme court also pointed out in their analysis that several of the issues in the case involve BOTH state and federal constitutional issues. The case has not been finalized yet. And since the state supreme court VACATED it, it has no current value as a constitutional argument. Nothing is going to happen in Pennsylvania until and unless their supreme court addresses it again for a final disposition.
I believe that the case was originally before the supreme court at an earlier date, then remanded back to Chester County who found it unconstitutional, which sent it back to the supreme court where it has been argued and is awaiting decision.
Exactly my point. No final decision has been issued, yet too many people are celebrating. The simple fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has given the prosecution a second chance to present evidence to support their position warns us not to celebrate before the game is over.