Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz


I just found the commonwealth’s argument when HB 1952 is challenged. I found it from Commonwealth v DERHAMMER (2016).
The premise of the argument is as follows:

“Simply put, an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal a former law and the prior statute remains in force. ”

So because Megan’s Law 3 was deemed unconstitutional, Megan’s Law 2 is still in force after it is reenacted. We have to hope that the Pa Supreme Court can get its order finalized before 1952 passes, so we can argue the gap allows Muniz to stand.