« Restrictive medical marijuana reforms proposed by Ohio legislature in shadow of broader initiative effort | Main | "Costs of Pretrial Detention" »
April 13, 2016
Federal district judge declines to enjoin "scarlet passport" provision of new federal International Megan’s Law
As reported in this AP piece, a "federal judge declined Wednesday to immediately block a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children." Here is more about a notable first ruling about a notable provision of a notable new federal law:
Since the marker provision has not yet gone into effect, deciding whether to block it over constitutional issues would be premature, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said. "It is not clear, for example, what form the identifier will take, which citizens will be required to carry a passport with the identifier, or whether the identifier will appear on the face of the passport or will be readable only by a scanner," she said.
Opponents of the marker have called it a "Scarlet Letter" that would wrongly imply that passport holders had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism and subject them to danger. Janice Bellucci, the attorney challenging the law, said she wasn't sure yet whether she would appeal Hamilton's ruling. Bellucci had requested a preliminary injunction against the law.
Bellucci said the judge missed a primary argument for blocking the law. "It doesn't make any difference what the identifier is and how it's applied to a passport," she said. "The fact is any identifier violates the constitution." Bellucci has said a marker would unlawfully compel speech.
The passport marker is part of the so-called International Megan's Law that President Barack Obama signed in February. It also requires that other countries are notified that registered sex offenders are traveling there. The Department of Justice says the law attempts to address cases where people evade such notifications by traveling to an intermediate country before going to their final destination.
Prior related posts:
- "International Megan's Law" heading now to Prez Obama's desk
- "Do sex offenders deserve a scarlet letter on their passport?"
- Federal court to hear challenge to "scarlet passport" provision of International Megan’s Law
April 13, 2016 at 05:16 PM | Permalink
Comments
This new version of Megan's Law could disrupt and even endanger our airports by giving former sex offenders who get bumped from their flights an excuse to create physical confrontations against airport personnel. I could just imagine a disgruntled sex offender at the ticket counters, which are outside the security parameter, either threatening the ticket person who denied him or her a ticket, or by either running into a restricted part of the building behind the counter into the rear offices that could set off alarms causing a lock-down and cancellations of other flights for several hours. Imagine all the irate customers who see their flight suddenly cancelled due to just one altercation over this new law! A second scenario might involve a disgruntled GROUP of former sex offenders staging a demonstration at the entrance with the intent of disrupting passenger traffic inside and outside the terminal.
Or, far apart from any confrontations between protesting sex offenders and airport personnel, you could have several instances of attempting to falsify passports or of unscrupulous government officials putting false sex offender labels on passports of those without any prior criminal record that could lead to law suits of rights violations.
In any event, it is doubtful that this law will protect overseas children from international predators. It will be a bunch of headaches for everybody else involved.
Posted by: william r. delzell | Apr 14, 2016 9:20:54 AM
It's ludicrous to me that domestic law enforcement can't track travel of US passport holders based on existing passport information.
Secondly, is there any evidence that any foreign country is going to make use of this "code"? I suspect that unless there is a warrant for a traveler, non-US law enforcement isn't going to give a flying copulation through a rolling pastry, unless it is simply to deny entry.
Posted by: Fat Bastard | Apr 14, 2016 11:10:50 AM
@Fat B*****d:
The original bill's auther, Chris Smith, had stated that the impetus for the bill was a converstation he had with a Thai agent, in which he asked the agent, "What would happen if you saw a mark on a passport designating the traveller as a sex offender?" The answer, of course, was that Thailand would deny the registrant entry. In short, the entire pragmatic purpose of the passport marking is to DENY, and NOT restrict, travel to other foreign countries, and do it in such a way as to circumvent Constitutional protection for the registrant.
Posted by: Eric Knight | Apr 14, 2016 2:17:22 PM
The judge in this case seems to have missed the entire point. Foreign countries will now equate individuals holding passports with these "scarlet letter" markers as not only a sex offender but as a "sex traffiker", even if their crime had nothing to do with sex traffiking.
Judge...you got it wrong.
Posted by: kat | Apr 14, 2016 4:45:18 PM
Umm, as I see it people have no rights re. the US constitution when it comes to the actions of foreign governments. Whether Thailand chooses to refuse entry to someone or not is entirely irrelevant to what a US district court judge should be considering. There may be a right to move around within the US but the ability to enter the territory of some other sovereign is entirely upon that sovereign.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Apr 14, 2016 9:45:28 PM
@Eric
I never heard that before and I am deeply skeptical of its truth. To me that anecdote sounds like the typical bullshit one encounters in the Land of Smiles--tell them what they want to hear, not the truth. "Don't worry, me love you long time."
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 14, 2016 11:03:24 PM
Here is yet another very clear indicator that nanny big government (NBG) has grown far, far, far too large and has far, far, far too many resources. All good Americans should be working to shrink NBGs to a tiny fraction of their current sizes. Americans should limit the resources available to any government and failing that, waste their resources at every opportunity.
And of course we see yet again that the criminal regime's harassment is limited to "sex offenders". Clearly because no one else is "dangerous".
So F the federal government. My government would not treat me like this. They have turned their back on me. I have turned my back on them and everyone who supports them. I can't wait until more terrorists show up in the U.S. and start giving these criminal regimes more actual work to do. It will be good that they will have something legitimate to do other than being terrorists themselves.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 18, 2016 6:25:29 PM
