Tobin Mueller v. Rick Raemisch
740 F.3d 1128
7th Cir.2014Background
- Two Wisconsin-convicted sex offenders (Mueller and Deangelis) challenged Wisconsin’s post‑conviction "monitoring act," enacted after their convictions, arguing it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The act imposes lifetime registration, onerous reporting duties (address, emails, internet identifiers), prohibitions (name changes, photographing minors without consent, working primarily with children), and a $100 annual registration fee.
- District court granted summary judgment in part: invalidated the $100 annual fee as punitive (ex post facto) but upheld other challenged provisions.
- Both plaintiffs now live out of state and receive DOC letters reminding them of lifetime registration and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- On appeal the court considered standing (given plaintiffs’ nonresidence and disclaimers about out‑of‑state prosecutions), whether the fee is a punitive fine or a compensatory fee, and whether plaintiffs may proceed anonymously.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge lifetime registration and reporting while living out of state | Plaintiffs face continuing burden and threats (letters) and thus injury; can challenge provisions | State intends to enforce lifetime registration against nonresidents and has authority to do so; letters create real threat | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge registration and reporting; other challenges (photographing/working with minors) dismissed for lack of standing because state disclaimed prosecuting wholly out‑of‑state conduct — dismissal without prejudice |
| Validity of $100 annual registration charge (fee vs fine) | Charge is a punitive fine (ex post facto) because it singles out offenders and functions as punishment | Charge is a compensatory fee to offset registry costs and not punitive | Reversed district court: charge is a fee, not shown to be punitive; plaintiffs failed to prove it is disproportionate or intended as punishment |
| Whether other lifetime restrictions (name change, photographing children, employment limits) are punitive/ex post facto | Plaintiffs: restrictions are punitive and retroactive burdens | State: many restrictions are nonpunitive regulatory measures; some cannot be enforced extraterritorially | Challenges to those provisions largely dismissed for lack of standing (no intent to engage in proscribed conduct); otherwise provisions upheld as nonpunitive per Smith v. Doe framework |
| Permission to litigate anonymously | Plaintiffs: public revelation would cause harassment; registry publicity increases harm of being named | Defendants: no objection to anonymity but note registry information is publicly available; secrecy in litigation is disfavored | Denied: plaintiffs must litigate under their names because their status is publicly accessible and they are not victims; public‑access/ transparency interests prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (framework for determining whether sex‑offender registration schemes are punitive for ex post facto purposes)
- Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, 705 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing nonpunitive registration duties from punitive restrictions such as social‑media bans)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (standing from credible threat of enforcement suffices)
- Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing a compensatory fee from an unconstitutional taking where relation to services provided matters)
- Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 651 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2011) (analysis on when a labeled fee may be recharacterized as a tax or otherwise invalid)