Supreme Court Update
Moments ago the SCOTUS posted their order. 11 cases were granted certiorary. Neither of the sex offender cases we are following were on the list.
A copy of the order can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092817zr_9o6b.pdf
NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST HAS CAUSED CONFUSION AND THEREFORE HAS BEEN REMOVED
So does this mean that registrants from states outside the 6th district whose crimes were committed prior to 1994 can move to those states governed by the 6th district and avoid the registry?
This has nothing to do with “avoiding the registry” and please lets not get confused. People in the 6th circuit who were convicted when there was a registry will still be on the registry.
Elements of the registry cannot be applied retroactively. That means; if one’s case is from 2010 and in 2011 the state requires registrants die their hair blue, it can’t apply to people whose cases pre-date 2011.
Thanks for that explanation. My question involves those whose crimes were committed before any registry existed at all?
The next question is whether changes to the DURATION and nature of registration can be applied retroactively. We have had on District Court in Ohio, which is part of the 6th, say no., right? As best as I can tell, Ohio continued to apply “state of conviction” classification converted to post AWA tiers for out of staters. So for Florida registrants, that would be lifetime registration for all.
Thanks for that explanation JoeM. Not the best news in the world, but much appreciate your taking the time to respond to the question.
Seems like the only State in the union that has gotten it right is (ironically enough) Alaska.
How a federal court can say the words “ex-post facto punishment” and any state’s registry then survive such a ruling for anyone caught up in registration requirements post-conviction date is beyond my ability to understand?
Lol of course not do you think they will repeal a law that they totally made a mistake on and believed false information? the highest court in the world will not admit they made a mistake, Ever.
They have overturn themselves before. SCOTUS in general. Where they ruled previously on a case and years later another case presented itself. There is a list of example cases showing the first case and then the second case while showing the timeline as well between both cases. Google it, I’m sure you’ll find it.
I’m watching the McGuire case as some others on here have mentioned, because it has similarities to Snyder and it pertains to us here coming from the 11th circuit and its precedence has been amplified by the opinions of the solicitor general and the denial of cert by SCOTUS as well.
Another potential case I’m watching is the one from Colorado. In that one, the Federal judge Richard Matshe ruled the registry in its entirety to punitive and unconstitutional for 3 defendants as applicable to them. It is being currently appealed to the 10th circuit and it may have potential to be considered by SCOTUS. That one I think may have potential to deal with Smith v. Doe. The 10th circuit is also Justice Gorsuch’s old court grounds and considering his dissent in U.S v. Nichols, he may want another crack at attacking government overreaching via Sorna through that Colorado registry case. Of course it may not happen, but the potential may be there.
Means they wont take it and leave it at the lower….. so now what ?
Can someone please explain this?
When a losing party (in this case Michigan) wants a higher court (in this case the US Supreme Court) to consider it’s appeal, it files a “writ of certiorary”, which is essentially an application for the SCOTUS to hear and make a decision.
Following briefing by both sides and any others who want to chime in (called Amicus Briefs), the Supreme Court Justices have a conference and then decide which cases they grant certiorary to (decide to hear).
On Monday, the justices had a conference to consider the cases before them and today they entered an order listing 11 cases they will hear in the upcoming session.
The two cases we were following (one of which we were closely following) was NOT on that list, meaning the Court did not pick it up.
Generally, when the SCOTUS does not grant certiorary, it means they agree that the lower court’s decision was correct in light of the law. In the case of Snyder, that’s a good thing, because the registrants won!
The bad thing is that if the SCOTUS does not render the final decision, it doesn’t become binding precedent for the entire US. So, in the case of Snyder, it’s binding in the 6th circuit.
What we now have to do is bring similar cases (to Snyder) in the other 10 appellate districts and hope for a similar outcome.
The Supreme Court of the United States receives over 5000 petitions of certiorari annually. Of those cases, they accept 100. It’s not a tragedy they did not grant cert. in Snyder. It simply means that at least 4 justices felt there was no issue in the 6th Circuit decision that required their review.
Will this denial of cert. be beneficial to the FAC’s Ex Post Facto suit?
Point of clarification – they have not issued their order denying cert yet – they just didn’t have it on their order of cases GRANTING cert. That might be semantics, but I want to be cautious about using the term “denied” YET.
As far as the question; leaving the 6th Circuit INTACT is good for a Florida (will be “Does” not FAC, FAC is not a sex offender) Ex-Post-Facto case.
Just showing my ignorance again. Sorry if FAC was in any way insulted. Certainly not meant that way.
No… I was just clarifying… Words are important so I don’t want to put out anything that may cause confusion.
so… what does this mean??
What does this mean? Or what are the possibilities that can now happen?
Look to the McGuire case in the 11th Circuit. It controls Florida and I am very sure that this win for the 6th Circuit will have a positive place in the McGuire decision.
Agreed. If SCOTUS denied to hear the Snyder case it’s because the 6th circuit got it right. The McGuire case which has parallels to Snyder, indeed can help us here, and the 11th circuit already cited Snyder in Doe v Miami Dade. What the Snyder case has now that it didn’t have before is the backing of SCOTUS and the SG as well. It makes Snyder even more persuasive I would think.
Has anyone heard anything about when the 11th circuit plans to hear McGuire case? Is there a link to that particular brief?
Follow this PDF link to McGuire v. Strange, it’s the Alabama case in the 11th. http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf
Thanks very much GW!