JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6; JOHN DOE #7; JOHN DOE #8; JOHN DOE #9 v. WILLIAM BYRON LEE, Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity; DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity - Articles

All Content

JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6; JOHN DOE #7; JOHN DOE #8; JOHN DOE #9 v. WILLIAM BYRON LEE, Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity; DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity

Posted by: Karen Belcher on May 15, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Gabriel Krimm, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: W. Justin Adams, SPENCER FANE LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Gabriel Krimm, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: W. Justin Adams, Edward M. Yarbrough, Jonathan P. Farmer, SPENCER FANE LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Mark E. Brown, MENEFEE & BROWN, P.C., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): SILER, NALBANDIAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

SILER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are eight men sentenced for sexual offenses between 1982 and 1994. Under the 2004 Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act (“the Act”) and its subsequent amendments, they are required to comply with various reporting requirements and geographical restrictions imposed on all sex offenders. Tennessee considers these laws instrumental in combating recidivism among a class of defendants it views as particularly dangerous to the most vulnerable within its society—its children. But Plaintiffs view the laws as a violation of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court agreed with the Plaintiffs and issued a sweeping injunction prohibiting Governor Lee and Director Rausch from enforcing the entire Tennessee code against the Plaintiffs.

For the reasons laid out below, we disagree with the district court. Therefore, we REVERSE IN PART the district court’s judgment that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and REMAND with orders to VACATE the declaratory judgment, DISSOLVE the injunction against Governor Lee, DISMISS Governor Lee from the suit based on a lack of standing, and to MODIFY the injunction against Director Rausch consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: