In re Taylor, 343 P.3d 867 (Ca. 2015)
Nature of Case: Four individuals on parole for sex offenses in San Diego, CA brought constitutional challenge against blanket enfrocement of residential banishment laws that they were subject to. Their facial constitutional challenge was denied, but the case was remanded to the trial court for fact-finding regarding their as-applied challenge.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, during which it found that petitioners were barred from 97% of rental housing that would be available to them, and that homelessness amongst parolees subject to these banishment laws spiked after their implementation which undermined efforts at rehabilitation. The trial court entered an order enjoining CDCR from enforcing blanket application of residential banishment laws to those on parole for sex offenses, with the caveat that CDCR could impose them as a special condition of supervision so long as it was based on individual circumstances. CDCR appealed, and appellate court affirmed the trial court. CDCR then petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
Holding: California Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial and appellate courts. Under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, blanket imposition of the residency banishment laws bore no rational relation to state’s legitimate goal of public safety.
- California Supreme Court Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Opening Brief
- Respondents’ Answer Brief
- Reply to Answer Brief