Judge’s ruling protects due process rights of Californians caught in federal registration trap
On April 9, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the Department of Justice from prosecuting California residents under a federal sex-offender registration law without first confirming with the state that those individuals are required to register in the first place.
PLF represents a group of plaintiffs who are caught in a bind created by conflicting federal and state law. Each had been convicted of a sex offense, served their punishment, been rehabilitated, and earned removal from California’s registry through expungement or formal court petition.
But in 2021, the DOJ adopted a rule under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) that required PLF’s clients to re-register with the state— even though California, having recognized their rehabilitation, prohibits the state from accepting registration from those who merited removal from its registry. Nonetheless, because of SORNA’s requirements, PLF’s clients faced the threat of federal felony charges and up to ten years in prison. Although they can’t register with the state, the federal government claimed authority to prosecute them anyway.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal found that arrangement unconstitutional because the law required the plaintiffs to raise an affirmative defense — essentially proving their own innocence — to avoid prosecution for something they had no ability to do. The government was treating “not being registered” as proof that a SORNA crime had occurred, without ever establishing that the plaintiffs had actually failed to act. In the court’s analysis, that improperly shifted the burden of proof on a core element of the offense.
“The government cannot punish someone for failing to do something the law itself makes impossible,” said Allison Daniel, PLF attorney. “Our clients did everything the law asked of them — they served their time, rebuilt their lives, and earned relief from California’s courts. The federal government’s ability to criminalize them anyway was a due process violation. This ruling makes clear that constitutional protections don’t have exceptions.”
The Constitution requires the government to prove its case. When the government is allowed to skip that step — even against people with complicated histories — the rights of everyone are diminished.
