June 7, 2010
Interesting state certification "dodge" to deal with juve SORNA case from MontanaI am intrigued (and I think pleased) that the Supreme Court this morning in US v. Juvenile Male decided to deal with a complicated issue involving retroactive application of a federal sex offender notification provision for adjudicated juvenile delinquents by certifying a question to the Montana Supreme Court. The per curiam order in this case has the SCOTUS Justices asks this question of the Montana Justices:
Is respondent’s duty to remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register asa sex offender, see Mont. Code Ann. §§46–23–502(6)(b), 41–5–1513(1)(c) (2005); State v. Villanueva, 328 Mont. 135, 138–140, 118 P. 3d 179, 181–182 (2005); see also §46–23–502(9)(b) (2009), or is the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that is unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federaljuvenile-supervision conditions, see §46–23–502(10) (2009); 2007 Mont. Laws ch. 483, §31, p. 2185?
I am uncertain whether this "passive virtues" approach to dealing with the Solicitor General's cert request following Ninth Circuit's ruling in Juvenile Male is a clever or curious dodge of a complicated sex offender registration issue. But I am certain that this approach shows the SCOTUS Justices' continued concern with at least some aspects of the scope and operation of federal SORNA provisions.
June 7, 2010 at 10:28 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interesting state certification "dodge" to deal with juve SORNA case from Montana:
"But I am certain that this approach shows the SCOTUS Justices' continued concern with at least some aspects of the scope and operation of federal SORNA provisions."
horse puckey! If that was the case then they would show a SPINE and tell the govt that all those things in 2002 that we TOLD you WOULD HAVE MADE the registry illegal. THAT YOU NOW REQUIRE has done just that and it's now a punishment and cant' be applied after the fact.
but NO they keep trying to dodge it.
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 7, 2010 6:09:14 PM