SCOTUS asks US Solicitor General to weigh in on Ex Post Facto case
The order from the US Supreme Court in the case of Doe v Snyder, the challenge to the Ex Post Facto application of Sex Offender registry conditions, reads as follows:
“The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.”
I believe it’s fair to say what the Solicitor General’s position will be.
It’s difficult to formulate an opinion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing – comments are welcome.
What bothers me about this is that SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by the opinion of the US or any other source! They should not be listening to the views of outsiders but only the people arguing the case??? it is like they are saying “Well we will just go along with the current view…”
No kidding…. what is the point of arguing a case in the lower courts if the higher courts solicits input from uninvolved parties? That clearly are biased – it does not take a legal scholar to see that.
And will the the Does be afforded the same opportunity to submit additional opinions? Unbelievable!
That’s my thought as well. It is my understanding that they are supposed to rule based on what their understanding of the Constitutional law regarding the case. I’m afraid that the US Solicitor General is going to have the same opinion as any law enforcement; that the registry is not punishment and they are protecting the community, so it justifies their actions.
I suggest contacting & education The Solicitor General & his or her Assistant, Manager, & Staff.
On the correct Probability Judgments as opposed to Limited Human Intuitive Judgments of the matter so a Correct view will be reported to SCOTUS by this department.
The current acting SA is Jeffrey B. Wall but President Trump is nominating Noel Francisco, that being noted…Both persons seem to be Acting SG’s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/jeffrey-b-wall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Francisco
My opinion: I think this is definitely a good thing and I commend the Court for reaching out. Judges are definitely sheltered from the rest of society and i’m sure they are tying to ensure that their decision isn’t so dramatically contrary to the present day culture. This is a social issue and SCOTUS does try and take into consideration cultural and social norms of the day. But they don’t need to do this. They know the right thing to do legally and morally. It’s obvious to them as it has been to all of us as well as to anyone who spends 10 minutes educating themselves. Society has been in a very foolish and dramatic social panic for a very long time and they have nothing to show for it. As a result, there does seem to be a sea-change happening in many states. Now, it’s Florida’s turn and I trust SCOTUS will rule in our favor. Thanks for the interesting article!
This would be AWESOME!!! Problem is though, that the S.O. INDUSTRY, yes SO’s are dollar signs for the states, is that so many people tied to the SO industry would lose their jobs. You think they will want this to go away??? No, didnt think so…..
I agree that many industries that exploit are there for profits and many who work in those industries would lose their job at every position. But many programs at the federal, state and even local levels shut down and many lose their jobs anyway. in 2008-2009 during the economic depression, many state programs and agencies closed like a domino effect and very quickly too. Many employees who lost their job had to move to Federal agencies for work or other State or local agencies that kept alive. I know because I was one of them that lost their job as well as many colleagues of mine in prominent high level positions. They either move you around to another program/agency or you find a job on your own. It wasn’t the end of the world.
This is totally different then the economic melt down. These are jobs specializing in Sex offenses. These were more less not around until mid-late nineties. That being said, these jobs are VERY specialized and offense specific.
This affects my husband. He was sentenced in 1995 to 25 years on a then law enforcement only registry. Those changes that were applied retroactively are an increase in punishment as they not only made his registration public with easy internet access for the general public, but also changed his registration to lifetime without any additional crime of any kind. He has even said that had he realized that he would be further and further restricted from a normal life, he would have actually fought for himself and not pled.
But yet no one bothers to think of that. We don’t go back and establish additional restrictions on people who have committed other crimes, why should we do it for sex offenses. Especially when we don’t actually offer them any chance at redemption. These offenders are not evaluated on whether or not they as an individual will re-offend, merely classified by their crime and the skewed statistical information on whether they as a group will reoffend.
This is a stain on our society. Not that we have offenders, but that we don’t do enough to prevent abuse in the first place or develop programs that will truly address the issue(s) these people suffer from.
This lock them up and ostracise them mentality has got to stop.
Sue – if you are in Florida, we are mounting our own Ex Post Facto challenge, similar to Michigan’s.
We are Michigan. But I’m glad to hear that Florida will be pursuing similar action. We will not step good in Florida again because your laws are beyond heinous.
I am so glad to hear this. Keep up the good work FAC, you guys are awesome and your work is greatly appreciated!
If I had any remote idea on what it meant to be on the registry, I would probably have fought my case in court.
Great – Francisco, a conservative white guy who is very proud to have worked directly for Scalia, and who has just been awarded a temporary/acting job under AG Sessions, by Trump – a job I think he really wants to keep by impressing his numb-skull boss, whatever it takes.
Actually when is the exposto facto challenge to the Florida Resigistry going to be filed
Is there a way to delay the SCOTUS decision until after Neil Gorsuch is a member of SCOTUS? I believe that he will be intolerant of ex post facto violations against sex offenders.
Actually, Neil Gorsuch makes very conservative decisions – it is unlikely he would vote in favor of the RSOs
Conservatives tend to dislike government intervention and overreach and tend to interpret the Constitution literally as written. The conservative view of the Ex Post Facto clause is probably good for RSOs.
Conservatives are typically the ones pushing SOR laws. Democrats in state legislatures all over the U.S., including the New York State Senate, Colorado State Senate and Washington State Senate, to name a few. That being said, Gorsuch is skepticial of executive branch power that extends ‘third-rail’ criminal-justice issues such as sex crimes.
In a CNN’s write-up of Gorsuch’s key rulings:
In this [United States v. Nichols], in a dissent from the full 10th Circuit’s refusal to rehear a three-judge ruling with which he disagreed, Gorsuch strongly objected to how much regulatory power a federal statute — the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) — gave to the Justice Department to apply its rules to those guilty of sex crimes predating the act’s enactment.
In his words, “the framers of the Constitution thought the compartmentalization of legislative power not just a tool of good government or necessary to protect the authority of Congress from encroachment by the Executive but essential to the preservation of the people’s liberty …”
I am notcovinced that he would rule on the side of the government in the retroactive application of SOR laws.
….
That is my thinking. I believe he feels strongly about maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and its principles.
Very few politicians, conservative and liberal alike, have voted against SO laws.
I also don’t think that having Gorsuch weigh in would be a bad thing. At least I hope.
Let’s just hope Gorsuch and the other Justices’ will do “the right thing” and call it for what it is….it’s a constitutional violation. It’s an ex post facto violation. That is what SORNA applied to those who’s sentence was completed is.
What if we all take a major stand and just tell them we aren’t doing it anymore…And then dont
Can we get one of our own lawyers to way in on these comments. It seems impossible to be able to escape from calling this an ex post facto violation, but remember, slavery was once thought to be constitutional as well. What do our lawyers think?
Like I have and ALWAYS will say: Its ALL about the money!!!
I was sentenced in June of 1983, I was release in November 2009. Forcing me to register is a violation of federal and state prohibition of ex post facto laws. Now I have to go to court for failing to register. I’m 70 years old so I don’t take this as a joke, but I’ll be damn if I let this state violation my constitutional right. FL statute943.0435 was not active in 1983.
We agree that it’s unconstitutional, but unfortunately the court’s don’t agree (YET).
I hope you have good representation.