The American Civil Liberties U v. Catherine Masto
670 F.3d 1046
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Nevada enacted AB 579 to align with SORNA, expanding sex offender registration and notification regimes.
- SB 471 added residency and movement restrictions for lifetime supervision as a condition of probation, parole, or supervision.
- Plaintiffs challenged retroactive application of AB 579 and SB 471 as violative of Ex Post Facto, Contract, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses.
- District court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting retroactive application of both laws; some defendants were dismissed from suit under a stipulation.
- The district court found retroactive application of AB 579 and SB 471 unconstitutional; Nevada appeals, and ACLU cross-appears on mootness issues for SB 471.
- Appellate review addresses (1) ex post facto/double jeopardy for AB 579, (2) due process for AB 579, (3) contract clause, and (4) mootness/consent decree options regarding SB 471.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB 579 retroactive punishment? | ACLU adopts Ex Post Facto/DJ claims opposing retroactivity. | Nevada asserts AB 579 is civil/regulatory, not punitive, and retroactive application is permissible. | AB 579 retroactive application not punish punitive; upheld civil regulatory purpose. |
| AB 579 due process adequacy? | Plaintiffs claim lack of hearing on conviction-based status violates due process. | Conviction-based registration is supported by adequate procedural safeguards; no extra hearing required. | No due process violation; no additional hearing required. |
| SB 471 retroactive residency/movement restrictions Contract Clause concerns? | SB 471 retroactive application impermissibly contracts rights or imposes punitive restraints. | State contends restrictions are prospective or moot; contractual impairment not violated. | Issue mooted by State’s concession that SB 471 will not be applied retroactively; not decided on the merits. |
| Mootness and remedy for SB 471? | Remedy sought includes vacatur or consent decree to preserve relief. | State concedes no retroactive application; dispute can be resolved via consent decree. | Case moot for SB 471; remand for district court to enter binding consent decree if possible. |
| Plea bargains and impairment of contracts under Contract Clause? | AB 579 may impair plea agreements. | State power to regulate public safety outweighs potential contract impairment. | AB 579 does not per se impair contracts; if impairment occurs, it is permitted; Santobello caveat noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (upholds civil regulatory regime for sex-offender registration)
- Hatton v. Bonner, 356 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (guides punitive vs civil-regulatory analysis under Mendoza-Martinez)
- Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997) (ex post facto analysis for sex-offender regimes; active dissemination not punitive per se)
- Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (due process and conviction-based registration; no hearing required)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea agreements and enforceability of prosecutorial promises)
- U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (states’ broad power to regulate in public welfare without destroying contracts)