Jоhn Doe, I; John Doe, II, Plaintiffs - Appellants, John Doe, III, Plaintiff, John Doe, IV; John Doe, V, Plaintiffs - Appellants. v. Doug Peterson, Attorney General of State of Nebraska in his official capacity; John A. Bolduc, Superintendent of Law Enforcement and Public Safety for the Nebraska State Patrol, in his official capacity
No. 21-1680
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
August 5, 2022
Submitted: May 10, 2022
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Nebraska rеquires persons who enter the State to register as sex offenders in Nebraska if they are obliged to register as sex offenders by another jurisdiction. This requirement applies to persons who cоmmitted their offenses as juveniles. Four Nebraska residents who committed sex offenses in other States as juveniles brought this action. They alleged that the registration requirement violated their rights to travel and to equal protection of the laws, because Nebraska does not impose a comparable requirement for persons who committed offenses as juveniles in Nebraska. The distriсt court* concluded that the registration requirement did not implicate the sex offenders’ right to travel, and that the requirement was rational and consistent with equal protection. We affirm.
I.
In 1996, Nebraskа enacted the Sex Offender Registration Act,
The Act‘s registration requirements do not apply to juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent in Nebraska‘s juvenile courts.
The appellants in this case, four John Does, are sex offenders who moved to Nebraska after committing offenses as juveniles in other jurisdictiоns. Each was adjudicated delinquent in another State and required to register as a sex offender under the law of that State. Based on the other-jurisdiction provision, the State Patrol will require the Dоes to register as sex offenders in Nebraska.
In an effort to avoid registration in Nebraska, the Does sued the state attorney general and the superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol in thеir official capacities under
II.
The Does first assert that the other-jurisdiction provision unconstitutionally burdens their right to travel. As travelers from other States who electеd to become permanent residents of Nebraska, they assert a right under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be treated like other citizens of Nebraska. See Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999).
In Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Corrections, 9 F.4th 513 (7th Cir. 2021) (en banc), the Seventh Circuit held that a comparable other-jurisdiction provision in Indiana‘s Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate the right to travel, even though an Indiana offender was not required to register. Id. at 525-26, 528. The cоurt observed that the right to travel may apply to defeat either a durational-residency requirement that temporarily limits a new arrival‘s access to some privilege or immunity, or a fixed-pоint residency restriction that permanently distinguishes between groups of residents based on when they achieved residency in the jurisdiction. Id. at 525, 527. But the court ruled that because the “trigger” that required an offendеr to register in Indiana was the obligation to register in another jurisdiction, not the duration or timing of his residency in Indiana, the disputed provision was “neither a durational-residency requirement nor a true, fixed-point residency scheme.” Accordingly, the Indiana provision did not offend the right to travel. Id. at 526.
Nebraska‘s other-jurisdiction provision, like Indiana‘s, does not discriminate based on residency. The provision rеquires an entrant to register in Nebraska if he is obliged to register as a sex offender by another jurisdiction.
Although there may be a correlation between a registration obligation in another State and a change in residence, the correlation is imperfect: some lifelong Nebraskаns may be required to register in other States and thus in Nebraska; some new arrivals who were adjudicated delinquent
III.
The Does next assert that Nebraska‘s other-jurisdiction provision violates the Equal Protection Clause, because the statute treats thеm differently than sex offenders who are adjudicated delinquent in Nebraska‘s juvenile courts. A classification that neither implicates a fundamental right nor involves a suspect class of persons is сonstitutional if it is supported by a rational basis. FCC v. Beach Commc‘ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). “This standard of review is a paradigm of judicial restraint,” and “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” Id. at 313-14. A сourt must uphold a classification so long as it is rationally related to any conceivable, legitimate state purpose. Birchansky v. Clabaugh, 955 F.3d 751, 757 (8th Cir. 2020).
Nebraska has a legitimate interest in public safety and in limiting the number оf potentially dangerous sex offenders who can avoid its registry. In furtherance of this interest, Nebraska requires offenders who must register in another State to register in Nebraska. The Does complain that Nebraska irrationally requires registration of juvenile delinquents from other States while it requires Nebraska offenders to register only if they are tried as adults. In making that distinction, however, Nebraska pеrmissibly decided that its own process for sorting juvenile offenders between juvenile and adult courts is a satisfactory means for determining which offenders present enough risk to warrant registration, while it declined to rely on the same sorting process for offenders from other jurisdictions. Given the varying criteria among the States for charging offenders as adults, and Nebraska‘s lack of control over the processes of other jurisdictions, the State rationally could err on the side of safety and look instead to whether another jurisdiction has concluded that the offender should be registerеd.
Nebraska also may permissibly consider the administrative burdens of adopting a different registration scheme. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 784 (1975). In addition to requiring registration of offenders who are required to register in another jurisdictiоn, Nebraska has elected to register anyone who committed an offense that is “substantially equivalent” to an offense that requires registration in Nebraska, even if the offender is not obliged to register in another State. See
As the district court observed, the other-jurisdiction provision also could be justified as a measure to further national policy. In 2006, Congress enacted the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which sought to establish “a comprehensive national system” for registering sex offenders.
*
*
*
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.