Does #1-9 v. Lee, Nos. 3:21-cv-00590, 3:21-cv-00593, 3:21-cv-00594, 3:21-cv-00595, 3:21-cv-00596, 3:21-cv-00597, 3:21-cv-00598, 3:21-cv-00624, 3:21-cv-00671 (M.D. Tenn. 2023)
Nature of Case: Nine individuals previously convicted of sex offenses brought § 1983 actions against Governor of Tennessee and Director of Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The plaintiffs alleged that they were put on Tennessee’s sex offense registry and made subject to its requirements despite the fact that when they committed their offenses, the registration scheme under the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act did not exist. Plaintiffs argue that this application of the Tennessee’s registry violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Following consolidation, the parties filed respective motions for summary judgment.
Holding: The District Court held that Tennessee’s sexual offender registration scheme is punitive in nature and, thus, retroactive imposition of the statute’s amendments violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, in the absence of a putative class action and the “rigorous analysis” performed therein, the District Court declined to grant injunctive relief to every individual currently subject to the statute based on offenses that occurred prior to its effective date, but instead would limit such relief to the plaintiffs
- District Court Opinion via Google Scholar