{"id":1956,"date":"2019-12-20T10:26:58","date_gmt":"2019-12-20T16:26:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1956"},"modified":"2020-01-03T10:30:54","modified_gmt":"2020-01-03T16:30:54","slug":"does-v-abott-et-al-5th-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/12\/20\/does-v-abott-et-al-5th-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Does v. Abbott et al (5th Cir. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Does v. Abbott et al, No. 18\u201311620 (5th Cir. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiffs were individuals required to register as sex offenders under Texas law, and brought a variety of constitutional claims challenging the legality of Texas’ registration statute. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state an action, and the Plaintiffs sought review of four of their facial claims: violations of Due Process for Texas’ classification process, Ex Post Facto clause, 8th Amendment, and Double Jeopardy.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on all claims. The Court held that the Plaintiffs waived their Due Process classification argument by not making it below, and the other claims were precluded by prior precedent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n