Eighth Circuit rebuffs ‘cruel and unusual’ label for Missouri sex offender list

Spouses and children of offenders had argued their homes' inclusion on the registry left them socially ostracized.ST. LOUIS (CN) — An Eighth Circuit panel on Monday found Missouri’s public sex offender registry does not create “a permanent, inescapable badge of stigma” as argued by a group of convicted offenders and their families.In affirming a lower court’s ruling, the three-judge panel refused to revive claims that the registry — also known as SORA — is broadly punitive and violates their constitutional rights.“In their brief to this court, the Does do not cite a case supporting their theory that family members who are incidentally affected by Mo. SORA have a plausible constitutional claim,” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the unanimous opinion.“The Does have not pointed us to any controlling or persuasive legal authority supporting their claims or articulated any specific error in the district court’s analysis. The district court did not err when it dismissed the family members’ claims," he wrote.During an April hearing, Attorney Guy Hamilton-Smith argued before the panel of judges the sex offender registry creates “a permanent, inescapable badge of stigma" while attempting to revive his clients’ claims after they were dismissed by a federal judge.The nine plaintiffs have homes listed on the registry due to a past conviction or that of a spouse or parent.They originally sued in May 2021, arguing the registry was unfairly punitive because it serves no public safety function and hurts spouses and children.“In particular, the children allege they were ‘shunned’ by other families and neighbors due to their parent’s status on the sex offender registry, they were harassed by fellow students, they were ‘robbed of a better education’ because schools refused to allow registered sex offenders on school property, and they missed out on having their mom or dad attend their activities,” Erickson wrote.They also asked the court to consider stark differences in society, technology and the law itself in the more than two decades since the Supreme Court last considered the question.The arguments centered on whether the list violates the Eighth Amendment regarding cruel and unusual punishment, but those arguments fell flat with the appeals court.“The Does have not explained how the law would have been considered cruel and unusual at the founding or why it is inconsistent with modern standards of decency,” Erickson wrote. “Moreover, the Does have not convinced us that societal changes, such as broader access to the Internet and increased reliance on digital technology, have critically undermined or wholly upended precedent analyzing the parameters of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments.”The panel found many of the Does’ due process, equal protection and free speech claims overlap and that they failed in their brief to identify specific counts for the appeals court to review.“The Does have failed to make a sufficient showing to demonstrate the law is so vague that it might ‘trap the innocent’ or that it impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to law enforcement in a manner that poses a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory application,” Erickson wrote.Neither Hamilton-Smith nor the Missouri Attorney General’s office, which represented the state at the hearing, immediately responded to a request for comment.U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, both George W. Bush appointees, rounded out the panel.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads