People ex rel Negron v. Superintendent (N.Y. App. Div. 3rd 2019)
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, holding that SARA-related housing restrictions did not apply to individual who was serving a sentence for a non-sexual offense.
Doe v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2019)
Federal trial court order denying motion to dismiss lawsuit regarding San Diego’s residential banishment laws, alleging various constitutional violations.
Bostic v. D.C. Housing Authority (D.C. Ct. App. 2017).
District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion holding that the eviction of an individual who was convicted of a 1982 offense and subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender was proper in that it was not contrary to HUD regulations, and was not otherwise preempted.
Gonzalez v. Annucci (N.Y. 2018)
New York Court of Appeals holding that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision complied with statutory duty to assist people convicted of sex offenses in obtaining housing that was compliant with New York’s Sexual Assault Reform Act.
Braylock v. City of Dayton (Hennepin Dist. Ct. 2018).
Hennepin County trial court finding that city’s residential banishment laws were unconstitutional under theories of conflict and field preemption
McGuire v. Strange (M.D. Ala. 2015)
District court for the Middle District of Alabama holding that various provisions of Alabama’s SORN law did not violate constitutional provisions with two exceptions related to travel and homelessness.
In re Taylor (Ca. 2015)
California Supreme Court invalidating blanket imposition of residential banishment laws to those convicted of sex offenses and and parole.
Doe v. City of Lynn (Mass. 2015)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that residential banishment law for those convicted of sex offenses that was enacted by city was effectively preempted under Massachusetts Home Rule amendment.
City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Anderson et al., (Broward Co. Ct., Fl. 2018).
Criminal trial court dismissing citations against defendants for violating residential banishment ordinance.
Vasquez v. Foxx (7th Cir. 2018)
7th Circuit Case affirming dismissal of constitutional claims brought against Illinois’ residence restrictions, inter alia, Ex Post Facto, Takings Clause, and both Substantive and Procedural Due Process arguments.
State v. Wade (Mo. 2013)
Missouri Supreme Court held that state constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws applied only to civil, not criminal laws, therefore presence restrictions applied to people on the registry could be constitutionally applied retroactively.
McGuire v. Strange (M.D. Ala. 2015)
Federal civil rights challenge to Alabama’s SORNA alleging various theories of unconstitutionality. District court held after bench trial that state law violated ex post facto in two respects: requiring weekly, dual in person check ins of homeless people on the registry as well as requiring dual application for travel permits.
Hoffman v. Village of Pleasant Prairie (E.D. Wis. 2017)
Civil suit brought by registrants in Wisconsin challenging local residency restrictions. District Court found that the restrictions violated prohibition against ex post facto punishments and equal protection.
Doe v. Miami-Dade County (11th Cir. 2017)
11th Circuit reversal of district court dismissal of lawsuit alleging residency restrictions in Miami-Dade county violated prohibitions on retroactive punishment.
Hoffman v. Village of Pleasant Prairie (E.D. Wis. 2017)
Federal civil suit alleging that village’s residency restrictions were equivalent to banishment and thus violated ex post facto as well as equal protection. Held that residency restrictions were unconstitutional.
In Re Taylor (Cal. 2015)
California Supreme Court affirmed holding of lower court ruling on state habeas that blanket enforcement of California’s residency restrictions violated Due Process under the 14th Amendment.
Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas (5th Cir. 2017)
5th Circuit case affirming lower court grant of summary judgment to city in re challenge ordinance restricting where those on the registry may reside based on due process and equal protection.
Doe v. City of Lynn (Mass. 2015)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion declaring unconstitutional local ordinance restricting where people on the registry may live on the grounds of preemption.
Werner v. Wall (7th Cir. 2016)
Seventh Circuit affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to state officials on monetary claims that state law which allowed for continued detention of plaintiff past his maximum release date due to inability to locate housing.
State v. Pollard (Ind. 2009)
Indiana Supreme Court opinion affirming trial court dismissal of charges against person required to register for violating statewide residence restrictions on state constitutional grounds.
People v. Diack (N.Y. 2015)
New York Court of Appeals held that doctrine of field preemption meant that counties could not enact their own ordinances restricting where people on the sex offense registry could reside.
Hyle v. Porter (Ohio 2008)
Ohio Supreme Court decision holding that residence restrictions could not be applied retroactively where, under state law, absent clear indication from legislature that law was intended to be applied retroactively, it could only operate prospectively.
Formaro v. Polk County (Iowa 2009)
Iowa Supreme Court affirming judgment of trial court that petition by person on registry seeking declaratory relief that residence restrictions did not apply to him was without merit.
Doe v. Miller (8th Cir. 2004)
Eighth Circuit opinion reversing district court grant of judgment to group of registrant plaintiffs who filed suit alleging various constitutional violations as a result of Iowa statute imposing 2,000 foot residency restrictions.
Doe v. City of Albuquerque (10th Cir. 2010)
10th Circuit decision affirming district court’s determination that because government failed to introduce evidence on the point, law forbidding people on the registry from entering libraries was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Commonwealth v. Baker (Ky. 2009)
Kentucky Supreme Court decision finding that, despite civil intent, residence restrictions were so punitive as to negate civil intent. Thus, their application to persons who had committed their offenses prior to their enactment violated state and federal constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.