43 F.4th 747
7th Cir.2022Background:
- The Village of Hartland enacted Ord. No. 850-18 banning "temporary or permanent" residence by "Designated Offenders" (sex offenders) until a calculated "saturation level" fell to 1.1; saturation at enactment was 6.75.
- Karsten Koch, a registered sex offender convicted before the Ordinance, wished to move to Hartland but was barred and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Ex Post Facto Clause violation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Village, applying Seventh Circuit precedents (Leach and Vasquez) that a law applying only to future conduct is not retroactive.
- The Seventh Circuit majority rejected the Leach–Vasquez retroactivity rule, adopted the Weaver/Vartelas framing (focus on whether the law changes legal consequences of completed acts), and held the Hartland Ordinance is retroactive.
- Because the district court did not decide whether the Ordinance is punitive, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the punitive (Ex Post Facto) prong in the first instance.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity under the Ex Post Facto Clause | Ordinance attaches new legal consequences to Koch's prior convictions → retroactive | Ordinance regulates only future conduct (moving/residency), so under Leach/Vasquez it is prospective | Court overruled Leach/Vasquez; applying Weaver/Vartelas test, Ordinance is retroactive because it changes legal consequences of pre-enactment convictions |
| Whether the Ordinance is "punitive" (second Ex Post Facto prong) | The ban imposes affirmative disabilities/restraints tied to past convictions and thus may be punishment | The Village says the Ordinance is regulatory/public-safety, not punishment; district court did not reach this | Remanded for district court to decide punitive effect in the first instance |
| Validity of Leach/Vasquez retroactivity rule | Urged overruling as inconsistent with Weaver/Vartelas and other circuits | Relied on those precedents to uphold district court judgment | Seventh Circuit overruled Leach and Vasquez as untenable |
| Remedy/procedure | N/A (Koch seeks relief) | N/A | Judgment reversed and case remanded to district court to assess punishment prong and further relief as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (retroactivity test: whether law changes legal consequences of completed acts)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (clarified retroactivity inquiry; examined whether law targets postenactment dangers vs. past misconduct)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (sex-offender registration analysis; punitive-purpose/effect framework)
- United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior rule that laws applying to post-enactment conduct are not retroactive; overruled)
- Vasquez v. Foxx, 895 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2018) (applied Leach rule to residency restrictions; overruled)
- Hope v. Comm’r of Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 9 F.4th 513 (7th Cir. en banc 2021) (discussed tension on retroactivity and applied two-part punitive analysis)