New Jersey Supreme Court opinion holding that legislature did intend for minor, non-sexual offenses committed subsequent to a conviction for a sexual offense to forever bar relief for those seeking to be able to deregister.
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting permanent injunction, prohibiting in total the enforcement of any of Michigan's sex offense registration scheme to anyone who had committed their offenses prior to 2011, as well as prohibiting the enforcement of numerous provisions to any persons required to register.
Tennessee Supreme Court decision holding that trial court was without jurisdiction to modify order dismissing indictments for failure to register, and further commented on lack of apparent Due Process protections in Tennessee's statutory scheme.
Kansas Court of Appeals opinion reversing denial of petition for transitional release from civil commitment, where jury instructions did not require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had a mental abnormality which would make it seriously difficult for him to control his behavior.
Kansas Supreme Court affirming the commitment of an individual who was the subject of a second SVP petition in the wake of technical violations of his supervision, rejecting res judicata, collateral estoppel and Due Process arguments.
Virginia Supreme Court holding that Due Process does not require the state appoint expert witnesses for indigent respondents in the context of SVP hearings.
Alaska Supreme Court opinion holding that requiring sex offense registration without providing individuals with an opportunity to rebut a presumption of dangerousness violated state constitutional Due Process protections regarding privacy.
After remand from Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit addresses Due Process challenge to civil commitment evidentiary standard, holding that it is not unconstitutional in light of prior decisions distinguishing civil and criminal proceedings.
Several individuals confined to North Dakota's hospital as sexually dangerous individuals filed § 1983 suit alleging various unconstitutional violations. In ongoing litigation, District Court has thus far ruled that state statutory scheme is facially unconstitutional in that it placed no affirmative duty on state authorities to discharge those who no longer met criteria.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that as applied to juveniles, SORN scheme was unconstitutional in that it deprived them of due process rights.