tcdla.com - Voice For The Defense Online

e cently and are still minors or young adults. The vastma jority of persons affected, however, were adjudicatedde lin quent years or even decades before SORNA’s enactmentand quite obviously are no longer juveniles. In deed,the brunt of SORNA’s retroactive application to ju venileoffenders is felt mainly by adults who committedof fenses long ago as teenagers—many of whom havebuilt families, homes, and careers notwithstanding theirhis tory of juvenile delinquency, which before SORNA’sen act ment was not a matter of public record. For theseadults, sex offender registration and reporting threatensto disrupt the stability of their lives and to ostracize themfrom their communities by drawing attention to decadesoldsex offenses committed as juveniles that have, untilnow, remained sealed. Although from this point forwardno new individuals will be affected by the retroactivitypro vi sion, its effects will be felt by numerous individualsfor the rest of their adult lives.[The Issue Before the Court]We must decide as a matter of first impression—inour court and in any other circuit court—whether theret ro ac tive application of SORNA’s provision coveringin di vid uals who were adjudicated juvenile delinquentsbe cause of the commission of certain sex offenses beforeSORNA’s passage violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of theUnited States Constitution.[The Court’s Conclusion]In light of the pervasive and severe new and additionaldis ad van tages that result from the mandatory registrationof former juvenile offenders and from the requirementthat such former offenders report in person to law enforcement authorities every 90 days for 25 years, and inlight of the confidentiality that has historically attachedto juvenile proceedings, we conclude that the retroactiveap pli ca tion of SORNA’s provisions to former juvenileof fenders is punitive and, therefore, unconstitutional.[The Court’s Holding][W]e hold that SORNA’s juvenile registration provisionmay not be applied retroactively to individuals adjudicateddelinquent under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act,and we reverse the directive that S.E. must register underthe Act.The Rest of the StoryThe rest of the opinion is too long, even if excerpted, to includein this column. Judge Reinhardt did, however, discuss the following:• the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act—18 U.S.C. §5031 et.seq.;• whether the application of SORNA’s juvenile registrationpro vision is punitive;• whether the effect of SORNA’s juvenile registration ap plication is punitive;• whether the retroactive application of SORNA’s juvenilereg is tration provision “imposes an affirmative disabilityor restraint”;• whether requiring former juvenile sex offenders to registerand report to law enforcement regularly is a historical meansof punishment;• whether SORNA promotes the traditions aims of pun ishment—inparticular, the aim of retribution;• whether SORNA’s juvenile registration provision has a nonpunitivepunishment and, if it does, whether the re quirementis excessive in relation to the goal.My ThoughtsYes,g I know that S.E.’s case was in a federal court and not in astate court;g I know that the opinions of the Ninth Circuit are not heldin high esteem by some legal scholars and by some of thejudges of the other Courts of Appeal;g I know that it is not uncommon for the Ninth Circuit tobe reversed by the Supreme Court; and,g I know that I cannot predict what the implications of Juvenile Male will be for those of us who practice in the stateand federal courts within the Fifth Circuit.But, I also know that there are a significant number ofin di vid uals who are required, as was S.E., to register as a sex offenderbecause of conduct that occurred before the enactment ofSORNA. Eventually, one of these individuals is going to wanderinto a lawyer’s office and ask what, if anything, can be done tomake his registration go away. At the very least, Juvenile Malegives us a basis for an Ex Post Facto argument.16 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE October 2009