Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board
467 Mass. 598
| Mass. | 2014Background
- In July 2013 the Legislature amended the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Law to require SORB to publish registry information for level two offenders on its website; previously Internet publication was limited to level three and expressly prohibited for level two.
- Before the amendments, level classifications were tied to risk of reoffense and degree of dangerousness; level two meant “public availability” under §§1781 and 178J (in-person or identified requests), not Internet publication.
- Plaintiffs (putative class of persons finally classified as level two on or before July 12, 2013) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, obtaining a preliminary injunction preventing Internet publication of their registry information pending final adjudication.
- The amendments, if applied to pre-enactment level two classifications, would vastly increase publicly listed offenders (from ~2,422 level three to ~8,496 total level two+three), with documented risks of stigma, employment/housing discrimination, harassment, and likely republication on private websites.
- The Court framed the inquiry in three steps: (1) whether the amendments operate retroactively in effect; (2) whether the Legislature intended retroactive application; and (3) if retroactive, whether such application violates state due process (Mass. Declaration of Rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the 2013 amendments operate retroactively in effect? | Amendments attach a new legal consequence (Internet publication) to already-final level two classifications. | Not retroactive because they change future dissemination practices only. | Held retroactive: they attach new legal consequences to past final classifications. |
| Did the Legislature intend retroactive application? | The statute defines the registry as a central computerized registry and amended §178D to make registry data publicly available, implying inclusion of existing level two registrants. | The Legislature intended prospective application. | Held legislative intent to apply amendments to all level two offenders (including those classified before enactment). |
| Does retroactive application violate state due process? | Retroactive internet publication is inequitable: SORB implicitly found these offenders not dangerous enough for Internet dissemination; plaintiffs reasonably relied on prior law; disclosure causes severe, often irreparable, harms. | Public safety interest supports broader access; Coe and earlier decisions accepted Internet dissemination for level three and such dissemination advances public protection. | Held unconstitutional: retroactive application to those classified level two on or before July 12, 2013, violates Massachusetts due process. |
| Relief / Scope | Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction for pre-enactment level two registrants. | SORB sought to publish for post-enactment level two registrants and argued precedent supports dissemination. | Court permanently enjoined Internet publication for persons finally classified level two on or before July 12, 2013; amendments may apply to level two classifications made after that date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780 (2008) (retroactivity framework and state due process balancing for registry amendments)
- Coe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 442 Mass. 250 (2004) (upheld Internet dissemination for level three offenders tied to active dissemination rationale)
- Doe v. Attorney Gen., 425 Mass. 217 (1997) (recognition of stigma and harms from public access to registry information)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (federal test: a statute is retroactive when it attaches new legal consequences to past events)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (U.S. Supreme Court discussion of registration/notification consequences)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717 (1984) (retroactive aspects of legislation require heightened justification)
- McCarthy v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 366 Mass. 779 (1975) (vested-rights test for retroactivity, discussed and distinguished)