By Mark . . . On May 31, 2024, the parties filed their opening summary judgment briefs in Antrim v. Carr, 19-cv-396 (Eastern District of Wisconsin), in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s statutory scheme requiring that certain individuals convicted of sexual offenses be forced to wear a GPS monitoring device for life, even after they are off of any criminal supervision. Attached below are each side’s opening summary judgment briefs. Response briefs in the case are due July 5, 2024. NARSOL is intimately connected to the litigation, having subsidized the full costs of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses — Kate Weisburd, a law professor at George Washington University School of Law, and Kelly Socia, Professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies and a Fellow for the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
In a second case, on June 6, 2024, the United States District Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims in the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws et al, v. Latoya Hughes, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Depart-ment of Corrections, 24-CV-50025 (Northern District of Illinois). NARSOL is the lead Plaintiff in the case. The case challenges the constitutionality of a statutory parole restriction that prohibits individuals on mandatory supervised release (“MSR”) who have been convicted of sexual offenses from using or possessing erectile dysfunction medication. Dismissal of the case by the district is exactly what Plaintiffs sought. That is because existing Seventh Circuit precedent currently prohibits plaintiffs from challenging a mandatory condition of MSR under §1983 and requires that constitutional challenges to MSR conditions be brought in a habeas corpus petition. Plaintiffs seek to have this precedent overturned so that this and other unconstitutional parole restrictions can be challenged under the civil rights laws, which will make them much more vulnerable to attack. Only the Seventh Circuit can overturn its own case law. Hence, Plaintiffs will bring the case to the proper forum and make the case that existing precedent should it be overturned.
Mark is an attorney in Illinois and sits on NARSOL's board of directors. He has successfully litigated for registrants in Illinois in areas of residency restrictions and various parole restrictions imposed on individuals convicted of sexual offenses, including the Illinois Department of Corrections' no-contact policy with one’s own minor chldren. He has also brought three class action lawsuits that in combination have undone the Illinois Department of Corrections' policy of holding individuals convicted of sexual offenses in prison past their outdates due to their inability to find compliant housing.
