Today in Supreme Court History: December 30, 2005

12/30/2005: Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act, which gave rise to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

The Roberts Court (2006)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Louisiana v. Hill, 141 S.Ct. 1232 (decided December 30, 2020): Hill was convicted of statutory rape and "SEX OFFENDER" was put on his driver's license. He was convicted of scratching the words off. He won on his argument that this was "compelled speech" in violation of the First Amendment, both in the trial court and the Louisiana Supreme Court (341 So.3d 539). Here Alito denies Louisiana's motion for a stay; its petition for cert was then denied, 142 S.Ct. 311 (2021).

Klutznick v. Carey, 449 U.S. 1068 (decided December 30, 1980): the District Court found that the Census had undercounted New York, particularly in poor and minority areas, and precluded certification of the results. Here the Court grants the Solicitor's motion to stay that order. The Second Circuit later reversed, holding that New York's statistical adjustment proposal would be unfair to other states, 653 F.2d 732 (the Court then denied cert).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lots of people want to change from "M" to "F", or the other way around, but I don't think anyone wants to change from "Not Sex Offender" to "Sex Offender".

[defaultdotxbe]

Gender, hair color, eye color, etc are useful for identification purposes and as such may have a more compelling reason to be included on an identification card. Labelling someone a sex offender is essentially useless to purposes of identification.

[Bored Lawyer]

And when the state locks you up in the penitentiary, they are also doing something to you that you disagree with. That's kind of the usual result of a criminal conviction, your liberty can be restricted or taken away.

[Mr. Bumble]

...well unless you're special.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, that was the argument.

[F.D. Wolf]

It's hardly "useless". The most obvious utility would be instantly knowing a sex offender was somewhere he was not permitted, if, for example, a law enforcement officer stopped a suspicious character prowling around a schoolyard. In declaring the statute unconstitutional, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that could be accomplished with, for example, a subtle code on a driver's license known to law enforcement. Therefore, the prominent label "SEX OFFENDER" was not the "least restrictive means" to further a legitimate state interest.

[John F. Carr]

You don't have to show government issued ID if you are acting suspiciously. You may have to state your name and address.

[F.D. Wolf]

Perhaps, but in real life, when a police officer walks up to someone and says, "Let me see some ID," most people will produce their ID, rather than engage in a debate about what is required by statute. Also, producing ID will tend to shorten your detention, as a police officer will attempt to verify the information, rather than just take someone's word. Of course, one might try lying, but this likely runs afoul of other statutes. Additionally, I imagine sex offenders are probably required to carry ID and produce it on demand of law enforcement, like parolees and probationers typically are.