579 F. App'x 769
11th Cir.2014Background
- Windwalker was Florida-convicted in 1985 for oral sex with a child under 12 and later moved to Alabama.
- ASORCNA required his registration as a sex offender in Alabama due to the Florida conviction.
- In 2012 Windwalker challenged ASORCNA’s constitutionality in district court, which dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, Windwalker argues Ex Post Facto, due process, equal protection, and free exercise violations, plus a right to amend.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, accepting allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for plausibility.
- Court affirms district court’s dismissal, holding ASORCNA does not violate Ex Post Facto, due process, equal protection, or free exercise, and denial of leave to amend was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex Post Facto - Is ASORCNA punitive or civil? | Windwalker contends ASORCNA is punitive and retroactive punishment. | ASORCNA is a civil regulatory scheme aimed at public safety, not punishment. | ASORCNA not punitive;Ex Post Facto claim fails. |
| Substantive due process - Does ASORCNA infringe fundamental rights? | Windwalker asserts rights to privacy, housing, employment, movement, religion, and free from harassment. | No fundamental right is implicated; statute regulates for public safety, not a fundamental liberty. | Substantive due process claim rejected. |
| Equal protection - Are ASORCNA classifications irrational or overbroad? | Windwalker pleads classifications that warrant strict scrutiny. | Sex-offender classifications are content with rational basis; not a suspect class. | Rational-basis review applied; claim rejected. |
| Free exercise - Does ASORCNA burden religious practice? | ASORCNA unconstitutionally burdens religious exercise. | Law is neutral and generally applicable; any burden is incidental. | Free exercise claim without merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (ex post facto analysis for sex-offender registration)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (Kennedy factors for punitive vs. civil schemes)
- Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (fundamental rights not implicated; substantive due process analyses)
- United States v. W.B.H., 664 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 2011) (SORNA-like registration not punitive; in-person reporting treated nonpunitive)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (S. Ct. 2012) (free exercise principles; general applicability of laws)