249 F. Supp. 3d 951
E.D. Wis.2017Background
- In April 2016 the Village of Pleasant Prairie enacted an ordinance (the "Ordinance") restricting where registered child sex offenders ("Designated Offenders") could live: a 3,000-foot exclusion around various "prohibited locations," a 500-foot buffer between offenders, and a ban on new offenders moving in; grandfathering and limited lease-renewal exceptions applied.
- The Ordinance's map showed >90% of the Village off-limits; most low-income housing was excluded. The Village did not rely on empirical studies or data when enacting it.
- Plaintiffs (multiple designated offenders) sued, claiming the Ordinance violated the Ex Post Facto and Equal Protection Clauses. They sought injunctive relief and money damages.
- The Village repealed the original Ordinance and adopted an Amended Ordinance (shortening exclusion to 1,500 feet, removing the inter-offender buffer, and adding a 10-year recency exemption), after which plaintiffs conceded injunctive relief claims were moot but continued to press damages.
- The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability for the Ex Post Facto and Equal Protection claims (except it denied equal protection relief for one plaintiff, Norgaard); damages reserved for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Damages | Repeal does not moot damages claims; plaintiffs retain live controversy for monetary relief | Repeal and amended ordinance mooted the case | Court: Injunctive claims moot; damages claims remain live (mootness argument rejected) |
| Ex Post Facto (punishment) | Ordinance is punitive in effect: banishment, severe restraints, lifetime application, no individualized risk assessment or evidentiary basis | Ordinance is civil and aimed at public safety; defer to stated legislative intent | Court: Ordinance punitive under Smith factors (banishment, restraints, lack of rational connection/evidence); violated Ex Post Facto — summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability |
| Equal Protection (irrational classification) | Ordinance irrationally distinguishes offenders based on domicile at time of last offense without evidence of differing risk | Village asserts a general rational basis in protecting children from sex offender recidivism (misunderstands plaintiffs’ claim) | Court: Classification lacked any offered justification or evidence; violated Equal Protection — summary judgment for plaintiffs (except Norgaard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (establishes the Smith factors for determining whether a civil scheme is punitive for Ex Post Facto Clause purposes)
- Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.) (contrast on residency restrictions that did not constitute historical banishment)
- Snyder v. 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir.) (analyzing registration/residency scheme and lack of empirical support; importance of rational connection)
- Doe v. Miami-Dade County, 846 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir.) (finding an ex post facto claim where ordinance lacked individualized assessment and evidence)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (addresses mootness doctrine and that a defendant’s change in conduct does not moot damages claims)