{"id":3207,"date":"2022-03-01T15:35:42","date_gmt":"2022-03-01T20:35:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sexoffenderonestopresource.com\/florida\/?p=3207"},"modified":"2022-03-01T15:35:42","modified_gmt":"2022-03-01T20:35:42","slug":"weekly-update-2022-03-01","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sexoffenderonestopresource.com\/florida\/weekly-update-2022-03-01\/","title":{"rendered":"Weekly Update 2022-03-01"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear Members and Advocates,<\/p>\n

Last week something pretty amazing happened. Justice Sotomayor made a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in a case concerning sex offender residency restrictions. The case itself was not picked up by the Court (very few are), but Justice Sotomayor was so compelled to share her thoughts and opinions on the issue, that she made a statement.<\/p>\n

Opinions on cases the Supreme Court decides not to hear are somewhat rare. Generally, all you get is a list of cases that were denied with no indication as to whether any of the Justices felt a certain way about them. Sometimes, if a Justice feels strongly that a case should be taken up, but is overruled by the majority, you might get a statement. In this case, however, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that \u201cOrtiz\u2019s petition does not satisfy this Court\u2019s criteria for\u00a0granting certiorari\u201d, yet she still wrote a long statement. When this happens, you have to wonder what the subtext is.<\/p>\n

Then, in six magnificent pages she gave us so much valuable insight into what that subtext is. To start with, when it comes to densely populated New York City, the State\u2019s residency restriction just might be unconstitutional. To continue, she acknowledges the research which universally finds that residency restrictions don\u2019t work (and might even be counterproductive). To go further (and this will only excite the legal-eagles, but I promise you it\u2019s big), she writes that \u201cthe State\u2019s denial of Ortiz\u2019s liberty interest in his release demands heightened scrutiny.\u201d And finally, she predicts that it\u2019s \u201conly a matter of time until this Court will come to address the question presented in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n

Naturally it would have been wonderful for the Court to take up the case and knock out residency restrictions, but apparently this case was not the right one. Still, this statement is very useful. Even though such opinions are non-binding, they are hardly non-significant. First, Justice Sotomayor gave a signal to the lower courts that they should take a closer look at the constitutionality of residency restrictions rather than just blanketly finding they are constitutional because other cases found them to be. Second, she gave a roadmap for plaintiffs in future cases, that residency restrictions might not be unconstitutional in all cases throughout a state, but \u201cas applied\u201d to certain geographic areas they might be, so cases need to be more specifically tailored to the location. Third, for everyone who thought the Court was blind to the science in any \u201csex offender cases\u201d (think Smith v. Doe), that\u2019s not the case (rather, no longer the case). And finally, Justice Sotomayor effectively issued an invitation to bring such a challenge to the Court.<\/p>\n

All state\u2019s affiliates should accept this invitation and be joining together to identify the right vehicle to bring to the Supreme Court. Here in Florida, perhaps we should not consider the Miami-Dade case a signal that another residency restriction challenge would be a loser. Broward, for example, has 1 million fewer people but a higher population density and less available housing. Maybe \u201cas applied\u201d to Broward, or even \u201cas applied\u201d to the City of Ft. Lauderdale, their ordinances might be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

This Thursday March 3 at 8pm ET, the guest speaker on the monthly membership call will be a Public Defender.\u00a0 She will be discussing cases in which she has had to defend a Registered Citizen who failed to comply with one of the many restrictions and requirements of the today’s Florida Registry, and the challenges she, too, faces in providing that defense.<\/p>\n

As a final thought on Justice Sotomayor\u2019s statement, one of the most significant take-aways was hope. Her statement reminds readers that \u201cthe Constitution protects\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0people\u201d and that when \u201cthe political branches fall short in protecting these guarantees, the courts\u00a0must step in<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Our day will come!<\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/p>\n

The Florida Action Committee<\/p>\n

NOTE:\u00a0 A national conference is planned for March 2023 that includes a vigil on the steps of the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 Watch for details!<\/p>\n

ANNOUNCEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

New Calendar of Events – Keep up with Meet-and-Greets in your area, Support groups, Membership Calls, and other events.\u00a0\u00a0Click Here for Calendar,<\/a>\u00a0and double click on the event to view details and RSVP instructions. For questions, contact\u00a0membership@floridaactioncommittee.org\u00a0<\/a>or call 833-273-7325,Option 1.<\/p>\n