4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the lower court dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an individual incarcerated on a sex offense who sued alleging that Department of Corrections Regulations that resulted in him being denied in-person visitation with his minor daughter violated Equal Protection and Due Process.
Federal district court opinion finding no constitutional violation with regard to Nebraska requiring juveniles adjudicated out of state and registered privately in their respective states to be placed on Nebraska's public registry upon moving there.
New Jersey district court opinion dismissing a constitutional challenge to New Jersey's sex offense registration scheme in the context of plaintiffs who had been adjudicated as juveniles.
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.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing a trial court dismissing Ex Post Facto claims, holding that plaintiff adequately pled Ex Post Facto violations, though affirming the dismissal of other constitutional claims.
Federal trial court in Minnesota refusing to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations stemming from MSOP officials refusing to allow family visitations with civilly committed individual.
Unpublished 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the district court dismissal of a constitutional challenge to Georgia's sex offense registry laws, alleging violations of the Ex Post Facto clause, Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and violations of the Eighth Amendment.
Federal trial court in Southern District of New York granting preliminary injunction halting imposition of sex offense registry and parole requirements in case of plaintiff who committed no sexual offense.
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.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts holding that amendments to law altering classification could not constitutionally apply retroactively to certain individuals who were classified as "level two" offenders prior to enactment.