Tennessee Files Appeal in Case That Determined TSORNA is Punishment
As expected, Tennessee has filed an appeal in Does v Lee. In this case, the 6th District Federal judge ruled flat out that the State’s SORNA was punishment and that retroactive components were Ex Post Facto.
Tennessee’s appeal emphasizes three failings of the ruling:
1) the Court exceeded its limits;
2) the Court erred in declaring Ex Post Facto;
3) the Court erred in making general advisory statements.
The appeal spends pages re-hashing the challenges of the 1990s and the ensuing problem solving legislation of the early 2000s. It cites a number of studies from those eras to underpin the rationale. The hat hangs heavy on Smith v Doe and then a series of cases that cite this case to carry the argument forward. And, a few studies in the late 2000s seal the argument for an ever growing and evolving scheme for managing this scourge.
The analysis dies just when the studies have enough data to provide evidence that this approach doesn’t stop the occurrence of new crimes and to substantiate that recidivism is low regardless of SORNA. Today, so much data exists that most new studies are meta-studies which correlate the accuracy of studies of studies. This appeal is mute on that entire field of evidence.
The question begs why appeal so vigorously in light of both data and this court’s clear stance on the law?
Many argue that registries equal money for states and localities. Carpenter’s argument that animus (blind rage hatred) drives legislation always has more sway. Even more so, when one considers Morgenthau’s definition of power. Typically used in international relations, it always seems appropriate here: Power is the ability to get others to do what they wouldn’t normally do on their own. In the case of SORNA and its companion SORR, legislatures have taken the powers granted in Smith v Doe to exert more and more control on a group that has too few defenders and is too easy to keep targeting.
It is a judge’s ruling that this is both punishment and foundationally unconstitutional that causes the most fear to those who wish to preserve something, even failed policy. Having to reconcile the fact that new offenses are reported every day and that SORNA and SORR didn’t prevent them from happening will put real accountability on those who have spent two decades building the wrong solution.
Great article with lots of amazing, concise and pertinent summary language! THANK YOU!
I seriously believe Christ Himself could come down and declare the registry punitive, illegal and “Un-Godly” and yet the courts would tell Him to mind His own business.
Can’t wait for this to play through the 6th Circuit. I’ve considered leaving Florida to Tennessee. CP occurred in 2007. Conviction occurred in 2009. Been on Florida’s registry ever since without any violations. Not sure if it would be worth moving even if the 6th Circuit affirms the district court.
They may hold you due to being on Florida but if you can get off that states registry at least its partial freedom. Also look at GA registration requirements.
Yes, but GA is in the 11th Circuit. At least TN is in a move favorable Circuit.
Excellent Op-Ed on the appeal you provided here. More waste of taxpayer dollars in an office that knows better and is only looking for sympathy from some in a legal system that does tire of being abused by those who are allowed to practice in front of and within it.
This lawsuit calls out Doe v. Snyder decision quite a bit. Skimming over the first 60 pages this lawsuit looks to be challenging more stuff than the Michigan case. Which the state of Tennessee makes very clear around page 40 or so.
So here’s where my optimism comes in you have both these cases Snyder and Lee in the sixth circuit,so Michigan and Tennessee. The registry was regarded as punitive in Michigan. If Tennessee follows suit with even more elements that are found punitive, would the sixth court of appeals hear it because you would have two states in the same district that the 6th appeals court could’ve heard. If they don’t hear it, maybe that’s more indication that they view the registry, as punitive without saying so, but it would be nice if we get a court case saying as much. Fingers crossed we get a win I’m more than sure that if we win they write to the 6th to appeal.
I believe the sixth denied hearing the Michigan case which was there, right however, I believe that if they declined to hear this one that will be huge since it seems to be challenging the registry as a whole not merely living near Park schools, and day cares that made up the Michigan case.
I think they defended so strongly because the walls are crumbling down, hopefully the 6th can build off of Synder. And maybe just maybe a plaintiff will see this in Ohio and Kentucky really testing this outcome.
It’s been a while and I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the 6th Circuit ruled on Snyder and it was the US Supreme Court that denied certiorari when the Michigan AG appealed.
The 6th did hear the MI case and said that MI registry was indeed unconstitutional. SCOTUS punted on the case and would not hear it.
We now have a Split in the Circuits. MI, OH and TN in the 6th and AL, GA and FL in the 11th. And we have th PA Supremes ruling the regisry is unconstititional in Muniz and SCOTUS would not denied writ there as well.
So I do not know as long as the 6th follows its ruling in Doe v Snyder I will be optimistic. Aslo remember the 10th Circuit rulled like the 11th however in his Desent Justice Gorsuch made the “Blank Check” Statement.
I think if the right case gets to SCOTUS we have a chance to either have it ruled Unconstitutional based on New evidence or at best a roll back to the first generation Sorna.
Just my two cents. On a side note we have the LA Supremes and AL ruling in our favor on parts of SORNA.
It’s not going to fly.
I would think that the Sixth Circuit is bound by its Decission in Doe V Snyder. The judge in this case rulled in line with the Sixth Circuit. One of these day a judge will rule in line with Doe V. Smith that the first generational SORNA’s are constitutional and the Second, Third, and Fourth additions are unconstitutional.
That would be the case to take to SCOTUS. That would give them a case to set the record straight, First law civil and the add ons are the issues and ex post facto as they moved from a civil scheme to a criminal scheme. Just my opinion.
Correct. The state can’t argue the merits. That’s why they’re arguing procedure, that the governor and TBI are the wrong parties to provide the relief that the district court ordered. According to this appeal, affected registrants are supposed to get the ordered relief from the individual registering LE agencies. Pure idiocy that would be worthy of a Stella award if those were given for constitutional cases.
Here oral arguments
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audio/12-07-2023%20-%20Thursday/23-5248%20John%20Doe%201%20et%20al%20v%20William%20Lee%20et%20al.mp3
Listening to the arguments it will be really a travesty if Doe is not allowed to sue the Governor and they dismiss the case. But he is head of the state so every thing should fall on his shoulders.
Is this the TN case, that was quick getting it to the 6th.
Yes it’s from the December 7th court date this is the summary https://www.courthousenews.com/tennessee-argues-to-reinstate-sex-offender-registry-requirements-at-sixth-circuit/
It’s just court for arguments of reinstatement or not. I imagine it’s going to get addressed pretty quickly. The Doe vs Lee main suit still has to wind its way through the court system but if they keep the injunction in place it would be positive as the state would have more of an uphill battle to overcome. Especially since this has a whole lot more issues addressing the registry than the Synder case that’s used as precedent.
But I kind of agree with the old judge. It’s like you can’t sue anybody, so if you own more than one property in Tennessee, you would have to sue one county to get off and then go sue another county it would make more sense to sue the governor he’s the one who signs all bills into making them law so he should have authority over everything.
But using the prosecutors logic, why would the sheriffs office be in charge of something civil that doesn’t make any sense that seems like it’s criminal category. No other group of people go to the sheriffs office for civil matters they all go to the courthouse.
Not sure where to post this, but the Florida supreme court has altered Marsy’s law. Several factors were amended, one being Police officers cannot hide their identity if they are on duty.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/good-intention-gone-awry-supreme-court-knocks-down-abusive-interpretation-of-marsy-s-law/ar-AA1lxzpJ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=e9ae5756ad434e45bed96ac45a4487e3&ei=39