Grant Anderson v. Eric Holder, Jr.
396 U.S. App. D.C. 280
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Anderson was convicted in 1988 of violent sex-related offenses and imprisoned for 18 years to life.
- The DC Council enacted SORA in 2000, requiring registered sex offenders to disclose information to CSOSA and enabling public notice.
- SORA classifies Anderson’s offense as a lifetime registration offense, forcing ongoing registration and cross-jurisdictional reporting.
- SORA authorizes public notification and active measures by police about registrants’ status.
- Anderson, released on lifetime parole in 2009, sued the United States and DC, challenging SORA under Ex Post Facto, Fifth, Eighth, Equal Protection, and DC Human Rights Act provisions.
- The district court dismissed federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over DC Human Rights Act claims; Anderson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by being punitive. | Anderson argues SORA retroactively punishes him. | Government contends SORA is civil, nonpunitive. | Not punitive; SORA civil and nonpunitive. |
| Whether SORA’s design and effects render it punitive under Smith framework. | SORA is more punitive due to in-person updates, multi-jurisdictional registration, and active notification. | SORA is civil; no express punitive purpose or effect. | SORA remains civil and nonpunitive under Smith framework. |
| Whether in-person registration requirement creates an actionable injury for standing. | In-person updates burden Anderson. | Parole conditions duplicate the burden; no separate injury from SORA. | No standing injury; in-person requirement not independently punitive. |
| Whether registering in other jurisdictions is excessive or punitive. | Cross-jurisdictional registration is punitive and burdensome. | Necessary to prevent evasion; reasonable under Smith. | Not excessive; reasonable for regulatory purpose. |
| Whether Fifth Amendment claim survives; failure to state claim. | Fifth Amendment claim dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (held registration statutes civil, nonpunitive when aligned with public safety goals)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 357 (1997) (framework for punitive vs. civil analysis under Ex Post Facto)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (evidence of civil sanction; administrative enforcement supports civil nature)
- Weems v. Little Rock Police Dept., 453 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2006) (supports civil/nonpunitive interpretation of registration schemes)
- In re W.M., 851 A.2d 431 (D.C. App. 2004) (DC Court of Appeals held SORA civil/nonpunitive; persuasive for federal review)
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (2010) (recognizes multiple jurisdictions' registration burdens to prevent evasion)