Tennessee Fights to Re-Instate Sex Offender Laws
This legal challenge is one that could have far reaching implications not just for Tennessee but the rest of the country.
Tennessee is fighting to re-instate registration for those who were convicted prior to the new laws being signed. In March 2023, the courts ruled that "The Ex Post Facto of the U.S. Constitution clause bars governments from increasing the punishment for a crime that was committed previously. In order to find a violation of the clause, a judge must determine that the law being enforced retroactively is punitive. Judge Trauger noted that the violation doesn’t rely on the hardships faced by an individual plaintiff, but the punitive nature of the statute on its face." The plaintiffs were granted summary judgement in this case.
Tennessee is fighting to re-instate registration for those who were convicted prior to the new laws being signed. In March 2023, the courts ruled that "The Ex Post Facto of the U.S. Constitution clause bars governments from increasing the punishment for a crime that was committed previously. In order to find a violation of the clause, a judge must determine that the law being enforced retroactively is punitive. Judge Trauger noted that the violation doesn’t rely on the hardships faced by an individual plaintiff, but the punitive nature of the statute on its face." The plaintiffs were granted summary judgement in this case.
Write your awesome label here.
Why the appeal matters
The Defense cited the Sixth Circuit's previous decision in Does v. Snyder, a case in which similar in-person reporting requirements for sex offenders in Michigan were overturned as unconstitutional by the appeals court.
In Judge Trauger's initial ruling, she cited the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 ruled against the retroactive enforcement of a Michigan sex offender law (Does V. Snyder).
In the brief supporting the ban on inclusion into the sex offender registry, "The scheme comprehensively monitors and restricts registrants by classifying them by offense, forcing them to register and report in person, collecting and publishing their information, tracking their compliance, restricting where they live, work, or are present, restricting their interactions with children, and coercing compliance with the threat of severe criminal punishment" argument was made. There is no indication from the court on when a ruling is to expected on this case.
It appears that the crux of the issue is that those representing convicted sex offenders believe inclusion into a registry and certain restrictions is equal to ongoing and additional punishment beyond their incarceration. For a copy of the Judges Ruling in Does V. Snyder and a link to the recent article by "Courthouse News" click the links to the left.
In the brief supporting the ban on inclusion into the sex offender registry, "The scheme comprehensively monitors and restricts registrants by classifying them by offense, forcing them to register and report in person, collecting and publishing their information, tracking their compliance, restricting where they live, work, or are present, restricting their interactions with children, and coercing compliance with the threat of severe criminal punishment" argument was made. There is no indication from the court on when a ruling is to expected on this case.
It appears that the crux of the issue is that those representing convicted sex offenders believe inclusion into a registry and certain restrictions is equal to ongoing and additional punishment beyond their incarceration. For a copy of the Judges Ruling in Does V. Snyder and a link to the recent article by "Courthouse News" click the links to the left.