Amicus Curiae Brief — Anthony Rayshon Bethea, Petitioner v. North Carolina

Supreme Court briefOct 11, 2018

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 18-308

IN THE

___________

ANTHONY RAYSHON BETHEA

NORTH CAROLINA,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

___________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina

__________

BRIEF FOR THE CATO INSTITUTE

AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

__________

Ilya Shapiro

Counsel of Record

Trevor Burrus

CATO INSTITUTE

1000 Mass. Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 842-0200

ishapiro@cato.org

October 11, 2018

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the retroactive application of North Carolina’s sex offender registration statute violates the Ex

Post Facto Clause.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................... 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT.......................................................... 1

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4

I. THE DECISION BELOW IS CONTRARY

TO THE ORIGINAL MEANING AND

HISTORICAL PURPOSE OF THE EX

POST FACTO CLAUSE................................... 4

A. The Ex Post Facto Clause Draws No

Distinction Between “Civil” and

“Criminal” Retroactive Penalties. .............. 4

B. The Primary Historical Purpose of the

Ex Post Facto Clause Is to Prevent

Arbitrary and Vindictive Legislation

Aimed at Unpopular Groups. ..................... 9

C. The Court’s Treatment of the Ex Post

Facto Clause Ignores the Clause’s

Second Historical Purpose of Providing

Sufficient Notice of Sanctions. ................. 12

II. THE INTENT-EFFECTS TEST GIVES

EXCESSIVE DEFERENCE TO

LEGISLATURES, IMPOSES TOO-HIGH

BURDENS ON THOSE MAKING EX

POST FACTO CHALLENGES, AND

ENCOURAGES STATES TO DISGUISE

PUNISHMENTS AS “CIVIL” LAWS ............ 14

iii

A. The Ex Post Facto Clause Has Become a

Mere Procedural Checkmark for State

Legislatures. ............................................. 14

B. The “Clearest Proof” Standard Makes It

Nearly Impossible for Those Bringing

Ex Post Facto Challenges to Show that

a Law with a “Civil” Label Has a

Punitive Purpose or Effect ....................... 17

C. The Court’s Unwillingness to Invalidate

Retroactive “Civil” Laws Incentivizes

State to Enact Punishments that Alter

the Legal Consequences of Previously

Committed Conduct without

Constitutional Accountability. ................. 19

CONCLUSION ......................................................... 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Cal. Dep't of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) .... 5

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) .................. 2, 7, 9, 12

Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1866) ................ 8

De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960) ........... 11, 17

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ... 4

Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 298 (1977).................... 12

Doe I v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) ............... 10

E. Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) ...................... 4

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603 (1960) .......... 15, 16

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) .............................. 7

Hudson v. United States, 522 U. S. 93 (1997)..... 15, 18

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) .... 15, 17, 20

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez,

372 U.S. 144 (1961). ............................................... 16

Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 (1883) ..................... 12

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) .............. 17

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) .................... 20

Miller v. Florida, 483 U.S. 423 (1987) ...................... 10

Satterlee v. Matthewson, 27 U.S. 380 (1829) .......... 8, 9

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) ...................... passim

State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)......... 20

United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (1980) ....... 15, 18

Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) ........... 5, 10, 12

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. Art. I ......................................................... 5

Other Authorities

1 William Winslow Crosskey, The True Meaning of

the Prohibition of the Ex-Post-Facto Clauses, in

Politics and the Constitution in the History of the

United States 324 (1953) ......................................... 8

2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at

439-40 (ed. Max Farrand, 1911) .............................. 6

Brian A. Loendorf, Methamphetamine Offender

Registries: Are the Rights of Non-Dangerous

Offenders Cooked? 17 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 542

(2008) ...................................................................... 21

Catherine L. Carpenter and Amy E. Beverlin, The

Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender

Registration Laws,

63 Hastings L. J. 1071 (2012) .................... 11, 20, 21

Dana L. McDonald, Smith v. Doe: Judicial Deference

Towards the Legislative Intent Behind a Broad,

Punitive Civil Law Betrays the Core Principles of

the Ex Post Facto Clause,

63 Md. L. Rev. 369 (2004) ...................................... 16

J. Richard Broughton, On Straddle Crimes and the

Ex Post Facto Clauses,

18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 719 (2011) ......................... 13

Jane Harris Aiken, Ex Post Facto in the Civil Context:

Unbridled Punishment,

81 Ky. L.J. 323 (1992) ............................................ 19

Max Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of

1787 440 (2d ed. 1937) ............................................. 5

Michael J. Watson, Carnage on Our Nation's

Highways: A Proposal for Applying the Statutory

Scheme of Megan’s Law to Drunk-Driving

Legislation, 39 Rutgers L.J. 459 (2008) ................ 21

Michelle Pia Jerusalem, Note, A Framework for PostSentence Sex Offender Legislation: Perspectives on

Prevention, Registration, and the Public’s “Right” to

Know, 48 Vand. L. Rev. 219 (1995) ....................... 11

Oliver P. Field, Ex Post Facto in the Constitution, 20

Mich. L. Rev. 315 (1920-21) ..................................... 6

Simeon Schopf, “Megan’s Law”: Community

Notification and the Constitution,

29 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 117 (1995) ............... 16

The Federalist, No. 43 (Madison) .............................. 13

The Federalist, No. 44 (Madison) ................................ 5

The Federalist, No. 78 (Hamilton) ............................ 15

The Federalist, No. 84 (Hamilton) .............................. 5

Toni Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American

Criminal Law, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 1880 (1991) ........ 21

Wayne A. Logan, The Ex Post Facto Clause and the

Jurisprudence of Punishment,

35 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1261 (1998) ......................... 12

William W. Crosskey, Note, Ex-Post-Facto and the

Contracts Clauses in the Federal Convention: A

Note on the Editorial Ingenuity of James Madison,

35 U. Chi. L. Rev. 248 (1968) ................................... 6

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE1

The Cato Institute is a nonpartisan public-policy

research foundation established in 1977 and dedicated

to advancing the principles of individual liberty, free

markets, and limited government. Cato’s Robert A.

Levy Center for Constitutional Studies was established in 1989 to help restore the principles of limited

constitutional government that are the foundation of

liberty. Toward those ends, Cato publishes books and

studies, conducts conferences, and produces the annual Cato Supreme Court Review.

This case interests Cato because, from common law

to the Constitution, the prohibition of ex post facto

laws has been an essential safeguard of our liberties.

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case implicates all the Framers’ warnings

against retroactive laws. The prohibition of ex post

facto laws was of the highest importance to the Framers of the Constitution, who firmly believed that the

power to create retroactive legislation was a sign of

tyranny. Despite clear warnings from the Framers

about the inherent unfairness of such laws, the Supreme Court has adopted the view that the Ex Post

Facto Clause does not prohibit states from enacting

retroactive civil penalties. So long as a retroactive law

contains a discernable regulatory purpose and a “civil”

label, retroactive application will not run afoul of the

1 Rule 37 statement: All parties received timely notice of amicus’s

intent to file this brief and consent has been given. Further, no

counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and

no person or entity other than amicus funded its preparation or

submission.

Ex Post Facto Clause. Having been given a blueprint

to avoid judicial scrutiny, the Ex Post Facto Clause has

become a mere procedural checkmark when drafting

retroactive legislation. As a result, states like North

Carolina have enacted increasingly burdensome retroactive penalties on convicted sex offenders under the

guise of civil regulatory laws. Even after convicted sex

offenders have paid their debts to society, they continue to face vengeful, excessive punishments under

the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act

(SORNA) and its state counterparts. This unconstitutional practice flies in the face of the original meaning

of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The Court first considered the scope of the clause

in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). There, the Court

drew some distinction between criminal rights and

“private rights,” arguing that restrictions against ex

post facto laws were not designed to protect citizens’

contract rights. But the Court did not reach the question of whether state-imposed penalties are distinguishable into “civil” and “criminal” categories. Successive cases have reaffirmed Calder to mean that the

Clause does not guard against retroactive civil penalties. The artificial distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity, however, is wholly out of step with

the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Indeed, the historic evidence supports the proposition

that the clause was originally intended to prohibit

both criminal and civil retroactive laws.

Not only did the Court in Calder scrap the Ex Post

Facto Clause as originally understood, but its subsequent jurisprudence abandoned the twin historical

aims of the Clause: preventing vindictive legislation

aimed at unpopular groups and providing sufficient

notice of the sanctions in place. As a replacement for

these historic guiding principles, the Court has increasingly deferred to legislative intent—precisely

what the Ex Post Facto Clause was intended to shield

against. The Court’s extreme deference has resulted in

an unprincipled approach to ex post facto challenges.

In deciding whether a SORNA law constitutes retroactive punishment forbidden by the Ex Post Facto

Clause, the Court has elected to rely upon an untenable “intent-effects test.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92

(2003). Under this test, the Court provides the utmost

deference to legislative intent, only invalidating a retroactive law if there is “clearest proof” that the legislature intended to impose punishment. Id. The Court’s

supreme deference to state legislatures has made it

virtually impossible for those bringing ex post facto

challenges to show that an enacted retroactive “civil”

law has a punitive purpose or effect. States can skate

around the Ex Post Facto Clause by merely attaching

a “civil” label to any retrospective punishment. Due to

the Court’s exceedingly narrow interpretation in Calder and its progeny, ex post facto analysis has been

relegated to a mere rubber stamp for legislative action.

The Court’s unwillingness to invalidate civil statutes for their retroactive punitive effect incentivizes

legislatures to enact increasingly burdensome civil

penalties that alter the legal consequences of previously committed conduct without constitutional accountability. Since the Ex Post Facto Clause has lost

its foundation in original meaning, the intent-effects

test now rests on shaky ground and produces disparate

results. The circuit courts are split on the question of

whether SORNA laws are civil regulatory schemes or

punitive measures in violation of the Ex Post Facto

Clause. Without guidance from this Court, lower

courts will continue to reach conflicting decisions regarding the constitutionality of state SORNA laws.

Many legal scholars and judges, including justices

of this Court, have signaled an increased willingness

to ground constitutional interpretations in historical

understandings. See, e.g., D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,

592–93 (2008); E. Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 539

(1998) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“I would be willing to

reconsider Calder and its progeny to determine

whether a retroactive civil law that passes muster under our current Takings Clause jurisprudence is nonetheless unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto

Clause.”). This case presents an excellent vehicle for

the Court to revisit Calder and its progeny, as well as

an ideal opportunity to ground the Ex Post Facto

Clause in its original meaning and historic purpose.

The Court should take this case and reaffirm that the

Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws

prohibits states from skirting constitutional scrutiny

by simply labelling increasingly burdensome retrospective penalties as “civil” regulatory laws.

ARGUMENT

I. THE DECISION BELOW IS CONTRARY TO

THE ORIGINAL MEANING AND HISTORICAL PURPOSE OF THE EX POST FACTO

CLAUSE

A. The Ex Post Facto Clause Draws No Distinction Between “Civil” and “Criminal”

Retroactive Penalties

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides

plainly that “[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . . Ex Post

Facto law.” The Clause forbids the enactment of any

law that “imposes punishment for an act that was not

punishable at the time it was committed or imposes

additional punishment to that then prescribed.”

Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981) (quoting

Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325–26 (1866)).

The Framers highlighted their profound concern over

ex post facto lawmaking by including not one, but two

explicit clauses in the Constitution prohibiting such

laws. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 515

n.1 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“That the Framers

included two separate clauses in the Constitution prohibiting ex post facto legislation highlights the Framers’ appraisal of the importance of that prohibition.”).

In fact, until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the subsequent incorporation of the Bill of

Rights to the states, the Ex Post Facto Clause was one

of the few constitutional prohibitions on state conduct.

The Framers were deeply concerned with retroactive lawmaking. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, believed the proscription on ex post facto laws to be

among the greatest “securities to liberty” guaranteed

by the Constitution. The Federalist, No. 84. Similarly,

James Madison maintained that the prohibition on ex

post facto laws prevented abusive laws that were “contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and

to every principle of sound legislation.” The Federalist,

No. 44. Madison himself believed the terms “ex post

facto” and “retroactive” were synonymous with one another. Max Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention

of 1787 440 (2d ed. 1937). Commentators have insisted

that “[i]t is improbable that Madison alone understood

the terms [of the Ex Post Facto Clause] to have the

meaning he attaches to them.” Oliver P. Field, Ex Post

Facto in the Constitution, 20 Mich. L. Rev. 315, 320

(1920-21). The Framers displayed a clear aversion to

any retroactive lawmaking, making no distinction between civil and criminal statutes.

Debates during the Constitutional Convention provide further evidence that the Ex Post Facto Clause

was originally intended to encompass both civil and

criminal retroactive laws. For example, when Rufus

King moved to include specific language prohibiting

retroactive interference with contracts, George Mason

objected that unforeseeable situations may require

that states have the power to interfere with private

contracts. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of

1787, at 439-40 (ed. Max Farrand, 1911). Madison, a

key drafter of the Constitution, responded by asking,

“[i]s not that already done by the prohibition of ex post

facto laws, which will oblige the Judges to declare such

interferences null and void[?]” Id.

Following this discussion, the Convention moved to

insert a prohibition on all “retrospective laws,” a term

which had never been construed as referring to criminal laws only. Id. The Committee on Style later

changed the terminology from “retrospective laws” to

its present form of “ex post facto.” William W. Crosskey, Note, Ex-Post-Facto and the Contracts Clauses in

the Federal Convention: A Note on the Editorial Ingenuity of James Madison, 35 U. Chi. L. Rev. 248, 250

(1968). Even with that edit, there is no evidence that

any delegate objected to the Committee’s use of the

term “retrospective laws” or that the Convention intended to prohibit retroactive criminal laws alone.

Despite the Framers’ strong repugnance towards

retroactive lawmaking generally and the Constitution’s explicit text prohibiting any retroactive law, the

Court has interpreted the Ex Post Facto Clause as

merely prohibiting retroactive criminal penalties. In

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the Court’s first case

concerning the clause, the question was whether the

clause voids legislation that has retroactive effects on

contract and property rights. Id. at 387. The Court had

no cause to reach the specific question of whether

state-imposed sanctions are distinguishable into

“civil” and “criminal” categories. The Calder majority

concluded that the constitutional prohibition on ex

post facto laws was not intended to apply to civil laws.

Id. at 391. The majority deduced that laws impairing

contracts are considered a subclass of civil ex post facto

laws, and if all civil ex post facto laws are prohibited

under the Constitution, then it would have been unnecessary to include a specific prohibition against a

subclass of ex post facto laws. Id. at 390.

However, Calder’s conclusion that the Ex Post

Facto Clause only applies to retroactive criminal laws

is undermined by a case the Court dealt with a mere

12 years later. In Fletcher v. Peck, the Court applied

an ex post facto analysis to a civil statute. 10 U.S. 87,

139 (1810). The Fletcher Court found that a civil statute revoking land grants to bona fide purchasers without notice offended the ex post facto provisions of the

Constitution. The Court noted in relevant part that:

[a]n ex post facto law is one that renders an act

punishable in a manner in which it was not

punishable when it was committed. Such a law

may inflict penalties on the person or may inflict pecuniary penalties which swell the public

treasury. The legislature is then prohibited

from passing a law by which a man’s estate, or

any part of it, shall be seized for a crime which

was not declared by some previous law to render him liable to that punishment.

Id. at 138.

The application of an ex post facto analysis in this case

surely undermines Calder’s holding and suggest that

early courts interpreted the clause to prohibit both

criminal and civil retroactive penalties.

Other courts at or near the time of Calder that interpreted the Ex Post Facto Clause did not distinguish

between civil and criminal penalties. Regardless of the

label given to the law, any deprivation of rights was

considered a punishment subject to scrutiny under the

clause. See Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 320

(1866) (“The deprivation of any rights, civil or political,

previously enjoyed, may be punishment”). In the years

leading up to Calder, cases from Maryland, Virginia,

and New Jersey all suggested that the phrase “ex post

facto” included both civil and criminal laws. 1 William

Winslow Crosskey, The True Meaning of the Prohibition of the Ex-Post-Facto Clauses, in Politics and the

Constitution in the History of the United States 324,

338–39 (1953) (recounting debate in the First Congress over the meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause).

In Satterlee v. Matthewson, Justice William Johnson articulated a staunch challenge to the Court’s

holding in Calder that the Ex Post Facto Clause applied only to criminal penalties. 27 U.S. 380 (1829)

(Johnson, J., concurring). In dissecting and refuting

the underlying reasons for the Calder decision, Johnson stated that the issue in the Satterlee case was

based in the “unhappy idea that the phrase ‘ex post

facto,’ in the constitution of the United States, was

confined to criminal cases exclusively; a decision which

leaves a large class of arbitrary legislative acts without

prohibitions of the constitution.” Id. at 416. He asserted that “the case of Calder v. Bull cannot claim the

preeminence of an adjudged case upon this point, and

if adjudged, was certainly not sustained by reason of

authorities.” Id.

The list of authorities challenging the holding in

Calder is substantial and proves too exhaustive to catalogue here. To be sure, both the Framers’ clear aversion to retroactive lawmaking generally and the debates that occurred during the Constitutional Convention support the contention that the Ex Post Facto

Clause was originally intended to prohibit all retroactive civil penalties. Moreover, courts that dealt with ex

post facto challenges at or near the time of Calder

came to differing conclusions regarding the scope of

the Clause. On balance, the historical evidence clearly

weighs heavily in favor of reconsidering the underlying reasoning in Calder and its progeny.

B. The Primary Historical Purpose of the

Ex Post Facto Clause Is to Prevent Arbitrary and Vindictive Legislation Aimed

at Unpopular Groups

As Justice Chase expressed in Calder, speaking on

the history of ex post facto laws,

[w]ith very few exceptions, the advocates of [ex

post facto] laws were stimulated by ambition,

or personal resentment, and vindictive malice.

To prevent such, and similar, acts of violence

and injustice, I believe, the Federal and State

Legislatures, were prohibited from passing any

bill of attainder; or any Ex Post Facto law.

Calder, 3 U.S. at 389.

Justice Chase pointed out that the Clause protects

liberty by preventing governments from enacting statutes with “manifestly unjust and oppressive retroactive effects.” Id. “[A]llowing legislatures to pick and

choose when to act retroactively, risks both ‘arbitrary

and potentially vindictive legislation,’ and erosion of

the separation of powers,” as well as the potential for

“violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of

the moment.” Id.

In accord with its primary historical purpose, the

Ex Post Facto Clause protects individuals who are vulnerable to retribution extending beyond their original

sentence, particularly when public sentiment is one of

revenge and anger toward a specific offense. Doe I v.

Otte, 259 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 2000). In such instances, the clause “restricts governmental power by

restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29; see also Miller v. Florida, 483 U.S. 423, 429 (1987) (restating that the primary historical purpose was to “assure that federal

and state legislatures were restrained from enacting

arbitrary or vindictive legislation . . . [and] preventing

legislative abuses.”). This historical recitation has traditionally provided the Court a foundation from which

to analyze the constitutionality of retroactive laws.

In cases presenting ex post facto challenges to

SORNA laws, however, the courts have been largely

silent regarding the primary historical purpose of the

Ex Post Facto Clause. In Smith, for example, the majority made no mention of the Clause’s goal of protecting unpopular groups from vindictive legislation. 538

U.S. 84 (2003). The Court ignored whether the intent

of the legislature is “to punish [the] individual for past

activity,” or to restrict the individual pursuant to “a

regulation of a present situation.” De Veau v. Braisted,

363 U.S. 144, 160 (1960). Smith has effectively allowed

states to direct burdensome civil penalties towards a

particular class of individuals.

It is indisputable that convicted sex offenders have

been particularly vulnerable to vindictive, ongoing retribution by states under SORNA. See Michelle Pia Jerusalem, Note, A Framework for Post-Sentence Sex Offender Legislation: Perspectives on Prevention, Registration, and the Public’s “Right” to Know, 48 Vand. L.

Rev. 219, 220–31 (1995). Legislators are generally eager “to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists

on a steady diet of fear.” Catherine L. Carpenter and

Amy E. Beverlin, The Evolution of Unconstitutionality

in Sex Offender Registration Laws, 63 Hastings L. J.

1071, 1074 (2012). This practice has led to “runaway

legislation that has become unmoored from its initial

constitutional grounding.” Id.

As Justice Souter noted in Smith, “it would be naïve to look no further, given pervasive attitudes toward

sex offenders” since the “Ex Post Facto Clause was

meant to prevent ‘arbitrary and potentially vindictive

legislation.’” Smith, 538 U.S. at 108–09 (Souter, J.,

concurring) (quoting Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29). The

clause’s primary purpose is particularly important to

stigmatized groups, such as convicted sex offenders.

Accordingly, the Court should contextualize its ex post

facto analysis within the scope of the primary historical purpose of the Clause.

C. The Court’s Treatment of the Ex Post

Facto Clause Ignores the Clause’s Second Historical Purpose of Providing Sufficient Notice of Sanctions

The second historical purpose of the Ex Post Facto

Clause is to ensure that laws give “fair warning of

their effect and permit individuals to rely on their

meaning until explicitly changed.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at

28–29. Through the prohibition on ex post facto laws,

the Framers sought to guarantee that legislative acts

provide individuals with proper notice. Id.; Dobbert v.

Florida, 432 U.S. 298 (1977); Kring v. Missouri, 107

U.S. 221, 229 (1883); Calder, 3 U.S. at 387. The Framers recognized that ex post facto laws are inherently

unfair because they deprive individuals of adequate

notice of the wrongfulness of their behavior and the

consequences thereof until after the fact. Wayne A. Logan, The Ex Post Facto Clause and the Jurisprudence

of Punishment, 35 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1261, 1276

(1998). The Framers anticipated the instability that

retroactive legislation could create, and thus incorporated the Ex Post Facto Clause into the Constitution.

James Madison articulated the threat that ex post

facto laws can have on established expectations:

Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly,

therefore, have the Convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security

and private rights; and I am much deceived if

they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted

interests of their constituents. The sober people

of America are weary of the fluctuating policy

which has directed the public councils. They

have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences in

cases affecting personal rights become jobs in

the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and

less informed part of the community. . .

The Federalist, No. 43.

The Framers thus recognized the need for individuals to remain informed about the status of the law.

Restrictions on ex post facto lawmaking require legislatures to respect individual reliance on the state of

the law as a means of protecting established expectations. After all, people should be able to rely on existing law when ordering their affairs. Clear legal obligations maximize individual freedom of action. Laws

should therefore operate prospectively to provide adequate notice. The Framers included the Ex Post Facto

Clause to protect these important values.

The need for notice is especially vital in the context

of laws that create punishment, where potential deprivations of liberty are greatest. The requirement that

laws be prospective in their application ensures that

punitive legislation serves its purpose of deterrence. It

also “assures that citizens are on notice of criminal

statutes so that they can conform their conduct to the

requirements of existing laws.” J. Richard Broughton,

On Straddle Crimes and the Ex Post Facto Clauses, 18

Geo. Mason L. Rev. 719, 721 (2011).

Since the ratification of the original Constitution,

the need for notice and stability has not changed. The

Court’s view of the Ex Post Facto Clause, however, has

transformed significantly. The present application of

the clause is out of line with its historical purpose of

putting those convicted of crimes on notice of their potential punishments. Convicted sex offenders now fear

the imposition of tougher and lengthier punishments,

even after fulfilling their initial legal obligations. The

Court should therefore align its ex post facto analysis

with the historical aim of providing sufficient notice.

II. THE INTENT-EFFECTS TEST GIVES EXCESSIVE DEFERENCE TO LEGISLATURES,

IMPOSES TOO-HIGH BURDENS ON THOSE

MAKING EX POST FACTO CHALLENGES,

AND ENCOURAGES STATES TO DISGUISE

PUNISHMENTS AS “CIVIL” LAWS

A. The Ex Post Facto Clause Has Become a

Mere Procedural Checkmark for State

Legislatures

The watering down of the Ex Post Facto Clause and

the values that underlie it has cleared the path for unaccountable deference to state legislatures. Deference

to legislative intent, however, is precisely what the Ex

Post Facto Clause was intended to guard against. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged the role of constitutional provisions in limiting legislative prerogatives:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one

which contains certain specified exceptions to

the legislative authority; such, for instance, as

that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no expost-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this

kind can be preserved in practice no other way

than through the medium of courts of justice,

whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution

void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

The Federalist, No. 78.

The Court has since abdicated its duty to enforce

the protections afforded by the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Instead of providing a necessary check on legislative

authority, the Court almost entirely defers to legislative intent under the untenable “intent-effects test.”

This test is used to determine whether statutes are

civil regulatory laws or punitive measures that violate

the Constitution’s ex post facto provisions. Smith, 538

U.S. at 92. The Court has applied the intent-effects

test to a wide array of cases involving issues of due

process, self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and ex

post facto laws. See, e.g., Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S.

346, 361 (1997) (applying the intents-effects test to due

process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto laws).

The first element of the intent-effects test looks to

the legislature’s intent behind the enactment of the

statute. United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248

(1980). A court must determine whether the legislature either expressed or implied a preference for the

statute to be classified as either civil or punitive. Id.

The court considers the statute’s text and structure,

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 617 (1960), asking

whether the legislature indicated either expressly or

impliedly a preference for one label or the other, Hudson v. United States, 522 U. S. 93, 99 (1997). Courts

examine various other factors as well, such as the procedural mechanisms in place for enforcing the statute

and whether the statute is located within a state’s

criminal or civil code. Dana L. McDonald, Smith v.

Doe: Judicial Deference Towards the Legislative Intent

Behind a Broad, Punitive Civil Law Betrays the Core

Principles of the Ex Post Facto Clause, 63 Md. L. Rev.

369, 377 (2004). Absent conclusive evidence as to the

penal nature of a statute, courts will not override the

legislature’s intent. See Flemming, 363 U.S. at 617.

In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, the Court wrestled, in the immigration context, with how to determine whether an act of Congress is “penal or regulatory in character.” 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1961). The seven

factors articulated in Mendoza-Martinez, id. at 168–

70, have helped illuminate the Ex Post Facto Clause,

but recent decisions showcase the Court’s tendency to

rubber stamp legislative conclusions under the intenteffects test. In Smith, for example, the Court found

that the state legislature intended Alaska’s SORNA

law to be non-punitive, despite finding that several of

the Mendoza-Martinez factors had some punitive effect. The majority did not require the state to show a

finding of dangerousness before subjecting prior offenders to the SORNA’s burdensome registration and

notification provisions. Smith, 538 U.S. at 102–03. Instead of using the Mendoza-Martinez factors to determine whether the provisions of the SORNA served the

intent of the legislature, the majority focused on the

degree of the burden imposed by the SORNA, a distinction not made in prior ex post facto cases. After all, ex

post facto jurisprudence is not concerned with degrees

of burden. See Simeon Schopf, “Megan’s Law”: Community Notification and the Constitution, 29 Colum.

J.L. & Soc. Probs. 117, 134 (1995) (noting that the

proper constitutional issue is not the degree of burden

on the defendant but whether the burden increases the

punishment for the crime).

The Court’s approach in Smith ignored the central

goal of ex post facto jurisprudence, namely to determine whether the intent of the legislature is “to punish

[the] individual for past activity,” or to restrict the individual pursuant to “a regulation of a present situation.” De Veau, 363 U.S. at 160. The Court should have

found the legislature’s intent to be ambiguous and applied the Mendoza-Martinez factors with less deference. Instead, the Court ultimately deferred to the legislature in its application of each factor. Smith, 538

U.S. 97–101. By failing to require the law’s provisions

to serve the statute’s stated intent, the Court set a

precedent that allows states to enact broad, punitive

measures that violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

In many instances in which the Court has employed the intent-effects test, it has deferred to legislative intent. See, e.g, Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 361. And

while the presumption of constitutionality affords

great deference to legislatures, Lambert v. California,

355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957), great deference does not

translate into unrestrained legislative freedom. Legislative authority may never override constitutional

principles. The intent-effects test as applied in the

Court’s ex post facto jurisprudence affords nearly universal deference to legislative intent, a practice that is

at direct odds with the original understanding and historical purpose of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

B. The “Clearest Proof” Standard Makes It

Nearly Impossible for Those Bringing Ex

Post Facto Challenges to Show that a

Law with a “Civil” Label Has a Punitive

Purpose or Effect

If a court finds that the legislature intended to establish a civil penalty, it then proceeds to determining

whether the statute is “so punitive either in purpose

or effect” as to negate the legislature’s intent to establish a civil penalty. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249. The burden

is thus on the challenger to show that the retroactive

law is punitive. A court will only invalidate the legislature’s intent if the challenger can show “clearest

proof” that the statute has a punitive effect. Hudson,

522 U.S. at 99–100. The clearest proof standard, however, has proven to be an impossible standard to meet

for those bringing ex post facto challenges.

When considering whether legislation that is expressly or implicitly civil has a punitive effect, it is unclear what a challenger would have to show to meet

this burden. The seven factors articulated in MendozaMartinez do not provide a dispositive test for determining whether a statute’s purpose is punitive. Ward, 448

U.S. at 249 (describing the factors as “neither exhaustive nor dispositive”). The factors are instead “useful

guideposts” for determining the effect of the statute in

question. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99.

In cases where the Court has required clearest

proof, the Court has found that the legislature unambiguously stated that its intent was civil. See, e.g.,

Ward, 448 U.S. at 249. The clearest proof standard effectively permits legislators to avoid judicial scrutiny

by simply labelling SORNA laws as having a “civil”

purpose. Consequently, those bringing ex post facto

challenges have a huge hill to climb to show that retroactive application of a law violates the Ex Post Facto

Clause. In Smith, for example, several of the MendozaMartinez factors were recognized as having some punitive effect, yet the Court found that no factor cut in

favor of “clearest proof.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 96.

The uncertainty of what constitutes a “punitive”

measure under the seemingly insurmountable clearest

proof standard affords great leeway for state legislatures to enact retroactive laws that can have significant punitive effects. Jane Harris Aiken, Ex Post Facto

in the Civil Context: Unbridled Punishment, 81 Ky.

L.J. 323, 326 (1992). Sex offender registration schemes

are designed to both protect the public and impose punitive burdens on the offender’s liberty, making them

difficult to categorize. In Smith, Justice Souter observed, “the indications of punitive character . . . and

the civil indications . . . are in rough equipoise.” 538

U.S. at 110 (Souter, J. concurring). Such a heightened

burden only makes sense when the evidence of legislative intent clearly points in the civil direction. Hudson,

U.S. at 113–14 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment).

Regarding SORNA laws, however, legislative intent is

not always clear. Such laws tend to impose increasingly burdensome penalties upon certain groups while

maintaining a “civil” label. When SORNA laws are

viewed from this lens, the clearest proof standard

proves to be an impossible standard to meet for those

bringing ex post facto challenges.

C. The Court’s Unwillingness to Invalidate

Retroactive “Civil” Laws Incentivizes

State to Enact Punishments that Alter

the Legal Consequences of Previously

Committed Conduct without Constitutional Accountability

Since Calder, the Court has largely refused to invalidate civil penalties because of their retroactive effects, despite how egregious the punishments have become. For example, the Court has upheld “civil commitment” schemes in which states refuse to release

convicted sex offenders from prison after they have

served their sentences. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 369–70.

In Hendricks, the Court held that civil commitment is

not punishment even though it results in continued incarceration. Id. at 370–71. Invasive and stigmatizing

sex offender registration and notice laws have also

been upheld. Smith, 538 U.S. at 85. The Smith case set

a particularly poor precedent that permits states to enact retrospective “civil” regulatory laws in violation

the Ex Post Facto Clause. Smith essentially signaled

to states that they are immune from ex post facto challenges if they simply give their sex offender registration laws a “civil” label.

Yet the years since Smith “have been marked by a

dizzying array of increased registration and community notification requirements, the emergence of

harshening residency restrictions, and the elimination

of individuated risk assessment.” Carpenter and Beverlin, supra, at 1078. Widespread dissemination of offenders’ names, photographs, addresses, and criminal

history serves not only to inform the public but also to

humiliate and ostracize convicted sex offenders. As the

Court observed in Lawrence v. Texas, even a conviction

of a misdemeanor sexual offense imposes a stigma that

“is not trivial.” 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003). Other courts

have also acknowledged that sex offender registration

can involve significant and intrusive burdens that stigmatize the offender. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 873

So. 2d 1205, 1213 (Fla. 2004) (recognizing that Florida’s statute “imposes more than a stigma,” subjecting

designated sexual predators to “life-long registration

requirements”). These burdensome requirements are

similar to shaming punishments that were used

throughout history to disable offenders from living

normally in the community. See Toni Massaro, Shame,

Culture, and American Criminal Law, 89 Mich. L. Rev.

1880, 1913 (1991).

The states’ success in imposing increasingly burdensome retroactive registration and notification

schemes on convicted sex offenders will incentivize legislatures to expand their civil regulatory schemes.

Some states have proposed creating registries for convicted drunk drivers. Michael J. Watson, Carnage on

Our Nation's Highways: A Proposal for Applying the

Statutory Scheme of Megan’s Law to Drunk-Driving

Legislation, 39 Rutgers L.J. 459 (2008). At least four

states have created registries for those convicted of

methamphetamine use. Brian A. Loendorf, Methamphetamine Offender Registries: Are the Rights of NonDangerous Offenders Cooked? 17 Kan. J.L. & Pub.

Pol’y 542, 551 (2008). Other state proposals include:

expanding the list of registerable offenses to include

tongue-kissing of a minor; requiring offenders to register with campus police if attending school; barring

sex offenders from attending festivals or Halloween activities; increasing the reach of residency restrictions;

and requiring weekly registration for homeless offenders. Carpenter and Beverlin, supra, at 1100.

Allowing such invasive and harsh retroactive sex

offender registries has opened the floodgate for states

to continue expanding the burdensome civil regulatory

schemes. In the wake of Smith, states have a perverse

incentive to impose longer and harsher punishments

on vulnerable groups. Simply by concealing retroactive

punishments under the guise civil statutes, states

have become immune from ex post facto challenges

and judicial scrutiny. The Framers could not have anticipated the development of these complex regulatory

schemes that impose retroactive penalties on those

that have already been convicted and paid their debts

to society. If left unchecked by the judiciary, state legislatures will continue to impose further retroactive

punishments on convicted sex offenders and other

groups prone to public animus.

CONCLUSION

The Ex Post Facto Clause is, in James Madison’s

words, a “constitutional bulwark in favor of personal

security and private rights.” The Federalist, No. 43.

The petitioners have correctly pointed out that this

case creates numerous splits among the circuit courts.

That fact alone warrants this Court’s attention, but

the constitutional implications of the decision below

add further import.

The petition should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,