John Does 1-7 v. Greg Abbott, 945 F.3d 307

Seven named plaintiffs (John Does 1–7), all listed on Texas’s sex-offender registry, sued Texas officials challenging Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
They brought facial constitutional challenges under § 1983, asserting violations of the Due Process, Ex Post Facto, Eighth Amendment, and Double Jeopardy Clauses based on tiered risk classifications and registration requirements.
The district court dismissed these claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the Does appealed only the four facial claims noted above.
The Does’ complaint alleged that tier classifications were based solely on the offense of conviction; they did not press an as-applied challenge below and thus waived arguments that tiers consider other factors.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) conviction or equivalent adjudication supplies required procedural due process for registry placement and tiering, (2) Chapter 62 is nonpunitive under Smith/Mendoza‑Martinez factors, and therefore (3) the Ex Post Facto, Eighth Amendment, and Double Jeopardy claims fail, and (4) stigma-plus due process theory was inapplicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process for tiering	Tier-based present-danger classifications require additional process beyond conviction	Conviction/deferred adjudication already provided constitutionally sufficient process; tiers are based on conviction	Dismissed — conviction supplies required process; plaintiffs waived any contrary factual claim
Stigma-plus due process	Registry and tiering cause reputational stigma plus secondary harms, violating due process	Stigma alone without a false government assertion and without direct state infringement is insufficient	Dismissed — no false assertions; harms are collateral, not constitutionally cognizable
Ex Post Facto Clause	Retroactive imposition of Chapter 62’s requirements and cumulative burdens are punishment	Chapter 62 is civil and nonpunitive, serving public-safety purposes	Dismissed — statute is nonpunitive under Smith/Mendoza‑Martinez factors
Eighth Amendment & Double Jeopardy	Registration/tiering impose excessive/arbitrary punishment and constitute additional punishment after sentence	Same as Ex Post Facto: statute is nonpunitive, so constitutional proscriptions on punishment do not apply	Dismissed — claims fail because statute is not punitive

Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (conviction/adjudication supplies due process for sex-offender conditions)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (registry statutes generally nonpunitive; Mendoza‑Martinez factors govern punitive-effect inquiry)
Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (conviction provides the process necessary for sex-offender registration)
Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (factors for determining whether a statute is punitive in effect)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (stigma-plus test for due-process claims based on reputational harm)
Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (contrasting decision finding Michigan registry punitive)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausible claim required to survive dismissal)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)