{"id":2692,"date":"2021-11-03T13:41:14","date_gmt":"2021-11-03T18:41:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2692"},"modified":"2021-11-04T16:57:07","modified_gmt":"2021-11-04T21:57:07","slug":"doe-v-wasden-d-idaho-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/11\/03\/doe-v-wasden-d-idaho-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. Wasden (D. Idaho 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Doe v. Wasden, No. 1:20-00452 (D. Idaho 2021)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Plaintiffs challenge the requirement that they register for the Idaho Sex Offender Registry because of their respective pre-Lawrence v. Texas<\/em>, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) convictions for consensual sexual conduct in violation of state crime against nature statutes.\u00a0 Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Idaho’s Crime Against Nature statute and sought a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin the state from requiring them to register as sex offenders in Idaho.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The District Court\u00a0 concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to their standalone challenge to Idaho’s Crime Against Nature Statute, stating that the statute has now been interpreted by the Idaho Supreme Court to bring it within the holding of Lawrence<\/em>. However, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the state from requiring either of the Plaintiffs to register as sex offenders finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and shown irreparable harm by way of the ongoing constitutional violations and the burdens of sex offender registration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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