Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States
Challenges under U.S. federal law have claimed violations of the ex post facto, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection and search and seizure provisions of the United States Constitution.
Limited challenges on federal law grounds, in particular objections to GPS tracking and restrictions on use of social media, have been more successful.
In McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002), the Supreme Court upheld a Kansas law that imposed harsher sentences on offenders who refused to participate in a prison treatment program.
Justice Kennedy maintained his earlier position from McKune v. Lile, writing[2][6][3] Alaska could conclude that a conviction for a sex offense provides evidence of substantial risk of recidivism.
The legislature’s findings are consistent with grave concerns over the high rate of recidivism among convicted sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class.
Ellman noted that in McKune v. Lile the solicitor general cited only one source for its claim "that the recidivism rate of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%."
The source for the claim was the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender, released in 1988.
[11] The California Supreme Court ruled on 2 March 2015 that a state law barring sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park is unconstitutional.
[13] This has led to some law enforcement agencies placing large red signs in front of the homes of serious sex offenders stating the name of the person and that they live at that address.
[16] U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland issued a ruling March 31, 2015 striking down four portions of Michigan's Sex Offender Registry Act, calling them unconstitutional.
A ruling stated the "geographic exclusion zones" in the Sex Offender Registry Act, such as student safety areas that stretch for 1,000 feet around schools, are unconstitutional.
[21] On remand, the Jackson County Circuit Court entered an injunction ordering that the applicable individuals be removed from the published sex offender list.
[25] As a result, the decisions of the Missouri courts prohibiting the retrospective application of sex offender laws remained intact.
[27] Local governments in New York cannot restrict where registered sex offenders can live, according to a ruling by the state's highest court published 31 May 2015.
Under New York law, only level 3 offenders and those on probation or parole are prohibited from being within 1,000 feet of school grounds or a day care center.
In a 5-1 decision, the court concluded that the state, by making an "irrebuttable presumption" about adults' behavior based on crimes they committed as teens, violated their constitutional right to due process.
