Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310

Background

Plaintiffs are five Alabama registrants challenging parts of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA), which imposes lifetime registration, reporting, residency and employment exclusion zones, branded driver IDs reading "CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER," and internet-identifier reporting requirements.
Plaintiffs brought First and Fourteenth Amendment claims; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and briefed.
Key challenged provisions: branded-identification requirement (Ala. Code § 15-20A-18) and internet-use reporting (Ala. Code §§ 15-20A-7(a)(9), (18), 15-20A-10(e)(1)); also facial vagueness challenges to residency/employment 2,000-foot (and 500-foot) exclusion zones and an as-applied Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the minor-cohabitation (overnight visit) rule.
Plaintiffs sought relief asserting compelled speech (First Amendment) and overbreadth/chill of online speech; they also claimed substantive and procedural due-process violations (family association and vagueness).
On summary judgment the court: (1) invalidated the branded-ID requirement as unconstitutional as applied; (2) declared the internet-use reporting requirements facially unconstitutional; and (3) granted the State summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims (standing and vagueness issues).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether branded driver ID compels speech	Branding forces registrants to convey a stigmatizing government message contrary to their views; it chills dignity and association	Branding is government interest to identify registrants for public safety; registrants can use passports or alternatives	Branded-ID is compelled speech and fails strict scrutiny; unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs
Whether internet-use reporting is constitutional	Requirement to report all online identifiers chills protected online speech and anonymity; overbroad and not narrowly tailored	Reporting furthers compelling interest in public safety and investigation; burdens are limited and reasonable	Reporting requirements are content-based, substantially burden protected speech, and are facially overbroad; declared unconstitutional
Whether minor-cohabitation rule violates family association (substantive due process)	Rule bars plaintiffs from living with chosen relatives, infringing fundamental familial rights	State argues minor-cohabitation and residency rules protect children and are rationally related to public safety	Plaintiffs (Doe 3 and Doe 7) lack standing for this as-applied challenge because the relatives they wish to live with also reside within independent 2,000-foot exclusion zones; State entitled to summary judgment on this claim
Whether residency and employment exclusion zones are void for vagueness	Statute’s definitions and enforcement are unclear, resulting in arbitrary application and chilling effects	Statute contains definitions, a preapproval safe-harbor for residency, scienter requirement, and is administrable	Court finds exclusions not unconstitutionally vague as applied to these plaintiffs; State wins summary judgment on vagueness claims

Key Cases Cited

Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (compelled display of state motto on license plates violates First Amendment)
Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (compelled factual disclosures burden First Amendment)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (content-based speech regulations trigger strict scrutiny)
Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301 (government cannot condition receipt of materials on affirmative act that chills speech)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (targeted speech regulation examined under heightened scrutiny)
Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563 (Ninth Circuit striking similar internet-identifier reporting requirement as burdensome to speech)
Cressman v. Thompson, 798 F.3d 938 (compelled ID-related speech analysis)