Jeremy from Indiana
I may be wrong, but I think the Supreme Court has an agenda with denying the two high profile sex offender cases in Michigan and Minnesota. The court has noticed that it is very difficult to strike down the entire registry with either of these cases, which after the comments in Packingham, I believe is the court’s goal. I believe they are preparing their docket for the case from Colorado that declared it cruel and unusual punishment. Michigan’s case was an ex post facto case and the majority of states have adopted that premise now. Minnesota’s was a civil commitment case that could have much further reaches beyond the registry.
Why would they not take these two cases in the interim you might ask? Well, if they took one or both of these cases and overturned or confirmed either one, the entire country would be bound to the decision(s). This would severely harm our chances in the Colorado case because many of the arguments brought in that case would be moot and the decision would have to be left alone for Colorado only.
By denying these petitions though, they left the door open for the Colorado case or any similar case that presents the cruel and unusual argument. A case that presents that argument is a much better case for the Supreme Court to have a landmark decision for our population considering that civil commitment and ex post facto don’t affect the majority of us, but cruel and unusual punishment does.
I hope I’m right.