Legal Decisions

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)

The plaintiff in this case was convicted of a sex offense prior to the enactment of Alaska's sex offender registration and notification law. He challenged the retroactive application of that law to him, arguing that it was a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the sex offender registration and notification law was regulatory in nature, not punitive, and as such did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause.

Connecticut v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003)

The plaintiff here challenged the public dissemination of sex offender registration information on the grounds that it violated his Procedural Due Process rights by failing to allow him to be heard on the issue of whether he was a "dangerous sexual offender" requiring registration. The Supreme Court held that there was no such violation, as the requirement to register was based simply on the fact of a prior conviction, and not on any assessment of current dangerousness.