I am very confident that this case will be decided in our favor. Many of the judges tore the state’s claims apart as did the petitioner’s response brief. I was a little concerned in the beginning when one of the justices was trying to find a way to make it constitutional as their precedent requires, but the petitioner’s lawyer navigated those questions like a pro. I loved Justice Breyer’s questioning regarding applying these same sort of restrictions against other classes of criminals. The state’s only answer was, “but… but… these are sex offenders!” (not exact quote of course)
I also noticed that Justices Thomas and Roberts did not join in the discussion. This is not really a surprise for either of them. Thomas has a long history of dissenting based on legal precedent though. I feel this case has the legal precedent well on our side, so he may characteristically concur in the judgment but write a separate opinion. Roberts is kind of a wildcard here. He traditionally approves a lower court’s judgment if there is any possible way to make it constitutional, regardless of the wisdom of the decision. He has long maintained that the wisdom of the legislature is not an issue for the courts to decide.
I can’t wait to see what happens here.
GOOD JOB NARSOL! Your brief was very well articulated and brought the entire debate regarding the scope of the registry to full view. You make me proud!