District Court decision concluding that a town ordinance limiting "designated offenders" from establishing residency was not retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause under controlling Seventh Circuit precedent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania opinion holding that retroactive application of sex offender registration law was punitive, supporting finding of unconstitutional ex post facto law, even where triggering offense occurred in another state and defendant complied with that state's registry requirements before moving to Pennsylvania.
Middle District of Tennessee opinion granting a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Tennessee's registration act against plaintiffs whose respective offenses were committed prior to enactment of the registration scheme, noting that well established Sixth Circuit precedent supports the conclusion that ex post facto application of Tennessee's registration statute is unconstitutional.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals opinion holding that any retroactive application of supervised release statute, West Virginia Code § 62-12-26, to an individual who committed any of the enumerated sex offenses prior to the effective date of the statute violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
Supreme Court of Kansas opinion holding that Mandatory lifetime post-release registration under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) does not constitute punishment for purposes of applying provisions of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
Kansas Supreme Court opinion holding that the lifetime sex offense registration requirement under the Kansas Offender Registration Act did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or federal and state prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in the context of a person who committed their offense as a juvenile.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that Indiana's practice of requiring registration of individuals who committed offenses prior to the enactment of their registration law, but moved to Indiana subsequent to the enactment of the law, does not violate the constitutional right to travel.
Michigan Supreme Court opinion holding that Michigan's SORA violates ex post facto prohibitions contained in the state and federal constitutions.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion holding that D.C.'s SORA law does not violate Ex Post Faco prohibitions as applied to an individual convicted prior to its passage and required to register.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding that a habeas corpus petition filed by an individual required to register was time barred, and that he did not raise a sufficiently colorable claim of actual innocence to overcome procedural defects.