FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 5, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 10 28 8 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 11 0 C V-ORL-2 8- KRS RAYMOND HOUSTON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us GAY N. W ILLIAMS, Inhe r of fic ia l capa ci ty as Exe cu ti ve Dire ct or of th e Bre va rdCo un ty W eathe riz at io n P ro gr am , BREVARD COUNTY, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (No ve m ber 5 , 20 08 ) Befo re DUBINA, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e:App el lantRaym on d Ho us to n app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e d efen da nt s, Gay N . W il li am s an d B rev ardCo un ty, whi ch up he ldth e d efen da nt s’ reject io n o f Hou st on ’s app li cat io n fo r weathe riz at io n as si st an ce. Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, Hou st on di sa gr ees with t he di stric t co urt’s re jecti on of hi s cl ai m s tha t: (1) th e Ene rg y Co ns erv at io n a ndPro du ct io n Actpro vi de s fo r a fed eral rig hten fo rceabl e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ; (2 ) th e Bre va rdCo un ty W eathe riz at io n As si st an ce Pr og ram Po li cy vi ol at es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n; (3) th e Bre va rdCo un ty W eathe riz at io n As si st an ce Pro gr am Po li cy am ou nt s t o abi ll of a tt ai nd er; an d (4 ) th e Bre va rdCo un ty W eathe riz at io n As si st an ce Pr og ram Po li cy is anexpo stfact o l aw. Forth e rea so ns th atfol lo w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e de fen da nt s. I. BACKGROUND Co ng res s en act edth e Ene rg y Co ns erv at io n a ndPro du ct io n Act(“ th e Act ”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 68 51 –6 87 3 (2 00 0) , to pro vi de fin an ci al ass is tanc e to lo w in co m e pe rs on s fo r en erg y

co ns erv at io n m eas ur es . The U.S. Dep art m en t o f Ene rg y , in10 C.F.R. § 44 0.2 2 (2 00 8) , est ab li sh edth e so le fed eral cri te riaforass is ta nc e el ig ib il ity . Thatpro vi si on st at es th ata dwe ll in g u ni t i s el ig ib le forweathe riz at io n as si st an ce i f itis oc cupi edby a fam il y who se in co m e is at o r be lo w 12 5% o f th e 2po ve rty lev el or c on ta in s a m em be r who , inth e p rece di ng y ear, re cei ve d c as h
as si st an ce p aym en ts un de r th e So ci al Secu rit y Act. 1 0 C .F.R. § 4 40 .22 (a)( 1) (2 ). Purs uantto th e Act , th e St at e o f Fl or id a rec ei ve s fe de ral fun ds as agra nt ee
an d, i n turn, awa rd s fu nd s t o s ub gr an te es th ro ug ho utth e st at e. One s uc h
subg ran te e is th e Bre va rdCo un ty W eathe riz at io n P ro gr am . Recei vi ng on ly $5 0,0 76 infed eral fun ds , th e Bre va rdCo un ty Boardof C ou nt y Co m m is si on ers ad op te d a dd it io na l el ig ib il ity requi rem en ts forweathe riz at io n a ss is ta nc e. The
co un ty’ s “ W eathe riz at io n As si st an ce Pr og ram Po li cy ” (“ th e Po li cy ”), HS-0 12 , m ak es in el ig ib le an y

ap pl ic an t who m us t re gi st er wi th th e Bre va rdCo un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce o r th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t u nd er Fl or id a St atut e 7 75 .13 as ape rs on co nv ic te d o f a fel on y

[. . .] or [ a]ny

pe rs on li st edby the Flo rid a Dep art m en t of Law Enfo rcem en t as a se xu al pre da to r orsex ua l o ffen de r as pro vi de d fo r un de r Fl or id a St atut es . Hou st on v. Brev ard C

ou nt y , No. 6 :0 6- cv -1 10 , Or. 3 (M .D. Fla. fi le d Dec . 19 , 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Lett er fro m Brev ardCo un ty to Pl ., Ju ne 30 , 20 05 , Ex. 1 t o Do c. 24 .).

3Hou st on is a co nv ic te d fe lo n a ndli st edsex off en de r. Desp it e m eet in g fed eral eli gi bi li ty requ ire m en ts , th e d efen da nt s re jecte d Ho us to n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r weathe riz at io n a ss is tanc e und er the Po li cy be cau se of h is cri min al hi st ory . Hou st on arg ue d t o t he di st ric t co urt, an d arg ue s n ow o n app eal , th atth e Po li cy ’s in el ig ib il ity

st an da rd s b as edon sex -o ffen de r st atus vi ol at e b ot h h is rig ht to see k a ss is tanc e und er the Act an d t he Depa rtment o f Ene rg y ’s eli gi bi li ty requi rem en ts . Hou st on bri ng s h is ch al le ng e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , whi ch pr ov id es inpa rt: Eve ry pe rs on who , un de r co lo r of an y st atut e, or di na nc e, reg ul at io n, cu st om , orus ag e, of

an y Sta te . . . subjec ts , or c au se s t o b e subjec te d, an y cit iz enof th e Uni te d S ta te s o r ot he r pe rs on withi n t he juri sd ic ti on th ereo f to th e de pr iv at io n o f an y

rig ht s, p riv il eg es , or i m

m un it ie s s ecu redby the Co ns ti tu ti on an d l aws , sh al l b e li ab le to th e p arty in jure d i n a n a ct io n a t l aw, su itinequi ty, orot he r pr op er p ro ceed in g fo r redres s. 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. The de fen da nt s co nt en d t ha t the Act d oe s n otcrea te fed eral rig ht s en fo rceabl e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83
. Add it io na ll y , Hou st on cla im s tha t the Po li cy vi ol at es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se of the U.S. Con st itut io n a ndth atth e Po li cy am ou nt s t o abi ll of a tt ai nd er 4an d a n e x p os t fa ct o l aw, invi ol at io n o f th e Fl or id a an d U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on s. Th e

de fen da nt s m ai nt ai n t ha t the Po li cy is a rat io na l m ean s o f al lo cat in g l im it ed weathe riz at io n fu nd in g. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s tand ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt, an d v ie win g a ll fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es th eref

ro m inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Arr in gt on v. Helms , 43 8 F .3d13 36 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when ‘ th ere i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d . . . th e
m ov in g p arty

is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.’” Cr uzv. Pub li

x S up er Mkt s, In c., 42 8 F .3d13 79 , 13 82 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c))
. III. DISC USSION A. Fede ra l Ri

gh t En fo rc ea bl e Und

er 42 U.S.C. §

19 83 Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s the qu es ti on of wh ethe r 42 U.S.C. § 6 86 1( b) crea te s rig ht s en fo rceabl e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , whi chpro vi de s a f ed eral rem edy

for vi ol at io ns of t he U.S. Con st itut io n a ndcert ai n fe de ral st atut es . Mai ne v. Th ib ou to t , 44 8 U.S. 1 , 10 0 S . Ct. 2 50 2 (1 98 0) . Alth ou gh th is is a cas e o f fi rs t im pr es si on with re ga rdto 42 U.S.C. § 6 86 1( b) , th is co urt h as he ldth atth ree requi rem en ts
5m

us t b e m etbe fo re a fe de ral st atut e wil l b e rea d t o c on fer an i nd iv idua l rig htun de r § 1 98 3: (1) Co ng res s m us t h av e in te nd edth atth e p ro vi si on s i n qu es ti on be ne fitth e p la in ti ff; (2) th e p la in ti ff m us t d em on st rat e th atth e rig htass ert ed ly pro te ct edby the st atut e is no t s o v ag ue an d a m or ph ou s tha t it s en fo rcem en t wo ul d s tra in jud ic ia l re so ur ces ; an d (3 ) th e p ro vi si on gi vi ng ris e to th e as se rte d ri gh t m us t b e co uc he d i n m an da to ry , rathe r th an pr ecat ory , term s. 31 Fos te r C

hi ld re n v . Bus h , 32 9 F .3d12 55 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Bles si ng v. Freest on e , 52 0 U.S. 3 29 , 34 0– 41 , 11 7 S . Ct. 1 35 3, 1 35 9 (1 99 7) ). The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t “ an yth in g s ho rt o f an
un am bi gu ou sl y co nf erre d ri gh t t o s up po rt acau se of a ct io n b ro ug htun de r § 1 98 3” is in su ffi ci en t. Gon za ga Uni v. v. Doe , 53 6 U.S. 2 73 , 28 3, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 26 8, 2 27 5 (2 00 2) . Part ic ul arl y

with re sp ectto leg is la ti on en act edpu rs ua ntto Co ng res s’s sp en di ng po wer, Co ng res s m us t “ ‘spe ak [] with a cl ear v oi ce,’ andm an ife st [] an ‘una m bi gu ou s’ in te ntto co nf

er i nd iv idua l ri gh ts ” b efo re fe de ral fun di ng pr ov is io ns wil l b e rea d t o p ro vi de a ba si s fo r pr iv at e en fo rcem en t. Id . at 2 80 , 12 2 S. Ct . at 2 27 3 (quo ti ng Pen nh ur st Stat e S ch . &Hos p. v. Ha ld

erman , 45 1 U.S. 1 , 17 , 28 & n .21 , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 53 1, 1 54 0, 1 54 5 & n.2 1 (1 98 1) ). “ Inleg is la ti on en act edpu rs ua ntto th e sp en di ng po wer, th e typi cal rem edy forst at e 6no nc om

pl ianc e wit h fe de ral ly im po se d c on di ti on s i s n ota pr iv at e cau se of a ct io n fo r no nc om

pl ianc e b utrathe r act io n b y th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t t o t erm in at e fu nd s to th e St at e.” Pen nh ur

st , 45 1 U.S. at28 , 10 1 S . Ct. at15 45
. Hou st on fir starg ue s tha t the co m bi ne d l an gu ag e o f 42 U.S.C. §§ 68 61 (b )
an d 6 86 3( a) cr eat es anen fo rceabl e ri gh t. Sec ti on 68 61 (b ) st at es th at : th e p ur po se of t hi s p art[is ] to de ve lo p a ndim pl em en t a wea th eri zat io n as si st an ce p ro gr am

to in crea se th e en erg y

effi ci en cy

of dwell in gs own edor oc cupi edby low-i nc om e p ers on s, re du ce the ir t ot al res id en ti al en erg y ex pe nd itur es , andim

pr ov e th ei r he al th an d s afet y , esp eci al ly low-i nc om e pe rs on s wh o a re p art ic ul arl y vu ln erab le su chas t he eld erl y , th e h an di cap pe d,
an d c hi ldren . 42 U.S.C. § 6 86 1( b)
. Sect io n 6 86 3( a) s ta te s tha t: The Secr et ary [o f Ene rg y ] sh al l d ev el op an d c on du ct , inacco rd an ce wi th th e pu rp os e an d p ro vi si on s o f th is pa rt, aweathe riz at io n p ro gr am . In de ve lo pi ng an d c on du ct in g s uc h p ro gr am , th e Sec ret ary m ay , inacco rd an ce with t hi s p artan d re gu lati on s p ro m ul ga te d u nd er thi s p art , m ak e g ran ts . . . to Sta te s . . . . Such gra nt s s ha ll be m ad e fo r th e p ur po se of p ro vi di ng fin an ci al ass is tanc e wit h re ga rdto pro jects de si gn edto pro vi de forth e 7weathe riz at io n o f dwe ll in g u ni ts , parti cu larly tho se wher e el de rly or

ha nd ic ap pe d l ow- in co m e p ers on s re si de , occ up ie d b y lo w-in co m e fam il ie s. 42 U.S.C. § 6 86 3( a) . Hou st on arg ue s tha t the lan gu ag e ab ov e li m it s the cla ss of p ers on s wh o m ay rece iv e fu nd in g, an d b ecau se he is a m em be r of th atcla ss , he s at is fie s the fir st pr on g o f Bles si ng . W e, ho wev er, d o n otag ree t ha t the lan gu ag e o f th e p ro vi si on s ci te d b y Hou st on ha s “ th e k in d o f fo cu se d- on -th e-i nd iv idua l, ri gh ts -cre at in g lang ua ge requi redby Gon za ga . ” Se e 3 1 Fo st er Ch ildr en , 32 9 F .3dat 1 27 2. Th e lang ua ge is no t the “un am bi gu ou s” st at em en t o f co ng res si on al in te ntth atSupr em e Co urt p rece de ntde m an ds
. Se e Pen nh ur st , 45 1 U.S. at17 , 10 1 S . Ct. at15 40
. In st ead , th es e se ct io ns of t he Act ar e m erel y a st at em en t o f Co ng res si on al pu rp os e de sc rib in g t he ge ne ral zo ne of i nt eres t the st atut e is in te nd edto pro te ct . Hou st on furth er re li es onth e “ Defi ni ti on s” sec ti on of t he Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § 68 62 , whi chde fin es th e te rm s “ lo w-in co m e,” “ el de rly,” and“hand ic ap pe d.” Hou st on arg ue s tha t Co ng res s i nt en de d fo r th es e th ree t erm s t o b e th e o nl y cri te ria fo r el ig ib il ity . The ca se law o f th is cir cu itdo es no t s up po rt s uc h a n a rg um en t. Bec au se th e te rm s i n 4 2 U.S.C. § 68 62 are “ de fin it io na l i n n atur e, th ey alo ne can no t an d d o n otsupp ly a bas is forco nf erri ng rig ht s en fo rceabl e und er § 19 83 .” Se e 3 1 Fo st er

Ch ildr en , 32 9 F .3dat 1 27 1. Thus , no ne of t he th ree s ta tu to ry 8pr ov is io ns Hou st oncit es co nt ai ns th e n eces sa ry “ rig ht s- crea ti ng lan gu ag e.” Se e id
. at 1 27 2. Whi le 42 U.S.C. § 6 87 0 p ro vi de s an en fo rcem en t m ech an is m ag ai ns t di sc riminat io n, i t i s a g en eral on e, an d afai r rea di ng of t he sec ti on est ab li sh es th at Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d t o c reat e a p riv at e ri gh t o f act io n fo r in di vi du al s d en ie d weathe riz at io n a ss is tanc e. Und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 68 70 (b ), Co ng res s g av e th e Secr et ary of

Ener gy, notin di vi du al s, the rig htto tak e act io n a ga in sta st at e fo r no n- co m pl ianc e. 42 U.S.C. §§ 68 62 (1 ), 68 70 (b ). Furth erm or e, 42 U.S.C. §§ 68 68
an d 6 86 9 p ro vi de admin is tra ti ve an d ju di ci al rev ie w pro cedur es forst at es th atare di ss at is fie d wi th th e Sec ret ary’ s d eci si on s. Th es e se ct io ns m ak e n o m en ti on of
rev ie w pro cedur es forin di vi du al ho m eo wne rs , anddo no t g ran t i nd iv idua ls a ri gh t to su e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83
. Hou st on las tl y

arg ue s tha t the de fen da nt s ar e li m it edto th e el ig ib il ity requi rem en ts an d p rio rit iz at io n s ch edul e se t fo rth in10 C.F.R. § 44 0.2 2. As th e di st ric t co urt re as on ed , ho wev er, i f th e Actdo es no t cr eat e anen fo rceabl e in di vi du al rig htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, the n n ei th er d o re gu la ti on s p ro m ul ga te d pu rs ua ntto th e Act
. Se e Har ris v. J ames , 12 7 F .3d99 3, 1 00 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (“ [I]f th e reg ul at io n d efi ne s the co nt en t o f a s ta tu to ry pro vi si on th atcrea te s n o fed eral rig htun de r th e th ree- pr on g t es t, o r if th e reg ul at io n g oe s b ey on d
9ex pl ic at in g t he sp eci fic co nt en t o f th e st atut ory pro vi si on an d i m

po se s d is ti nc t ob li ga ti on s i n o rd er t o fu rth er the bro adob jecti ve s u nd erl y in g t he st atut ory pr ov is io n, we thi nkth e reg ul at io n i s t oo far re m ov edfro m Co ng res si on al in te ntto
co ns ti tu te a ‘feder al rig ht ’ en fo rceabl e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 .”). Thi s co urt’s pr eced en t s im

pl y do es no t s up po rt Ho us to n’s as se rti onth ata fed eral rig htcanbe de riv edso le ly from

th e reg ul at io ns pro m

ul ga te d u nd er the Act. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth at42 U.S.C. §§ 68 61 (b ) an d 6 86 3( a) d o n otcrea te a fed eral rig hten fo rceabl e und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s
or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s. B. Equ al Pro te ct io n Hou st on arg ue s tha t the Po li cy ’s cat eg or ic al ex cl us io n o f se x o ffen de rs an d
co nv ic te d fe lo ns lac ks any rat io na l b as is , is co m

pl et el y un rel at edto th e ex pr es s pu rp os e o f th e fed eral weathe riz at io n a ss is ta nc e p ro gr am , andwas e na ct edou t o f
an im us to warda sp eci fic cla ss of i nd iv idua ls , th us vi ol at in g h is equa l p ro te ct io n rig ht s. Be cau se Hou st on do es no t cl ai m to be a m em

be r of a su sp ectcla ss an d do es no t al le ge a bu rd enon a fund am en ta l ri gh t, the qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e Po li cy vi ol at es equa l p ro te ct io n i s s ub ject t o ra ti on al ba si s re vi ew. Ka drmas v. Dickin so n Pu b. S

ch s. , 48 7 U.S. 4 50 , 45 7– 58 , 10 8 S . Ct. 2 48 1, 2 48 7 (1 98 8)
. Rat io na l b as is rev ie w inequa l p ro te ct io n a na lysis “ is no t a l ic en se forco urts to 10jud ge th e wis do m , fai rn es s, o r lo gi c o f le gi sl at iv e ch oi ces .” FCC v. Bea ch

Co mmc’n s, In c. , 50 8 U.S. 3 07 , 31 3, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 09 6, 2 10 0– 01 (19 93 ); se e a ls o Hav es v. Cit

y o f Mi ami , 52 F.3d91 8, 9 21 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Nor d oe s i t au th or iz e

“ th e jud ic iary

[to ] si t as a supe rle gi sl atur e to jud ge th e wis do m or d es irabi li ty of le gi sl at iv e p ol ic y

de te rm in at io ns m ad e in area s tha t n ei th er af fectfun da m en ta l rig ht s n orpro ceedalo ng su sp ectli ne s.” Ci tyof New Or le an s v. Du kes , 42 7 U.S. 29 7, 3 03 , 96 S. Ct. 2 51 3, 2 51 7 (1 97 6) . Pol ic y de te rm in at io ns “ can no t run a fo ul of th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e if th ere i s a r at io na l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he di sp ari ty of tre atm en t an d s om e le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en ta l p ur po se .” Hell er

v. Doe , 50 9 U.S. 31 2, 3 20 , 11 3 S . Ct. 2 63 7, 2 64 2 (1 99 3) . Furt he rm or e, a le gi sl at iv e b od y li ke th e Brev ardCo un ty Boardof C ou nt y Co m m is si on ers ne edno t “ actua ll y art ic ul at e at
an y ti m e th e p ur

po se or r at io na le supp orti ng it s cl as si fic at io n.” Se e No rdli ng er v. Hah n , 50 5 U.S. 1 , 15 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 32 6, 2 33 4 (1 99 2) . Ins te ad , th e p ol ic y de te rm in at io n “ m

us t b e uph el d a ga in stequa l p ro te ct io n c ha ll en ge if the re i s an y reas on ab ly con cei vabl e st at e o f fac ts th atco ul d p ro vi de a rat io na l b as is for th e cl as si fic at io n.” Bea ch Co mmc’n s , 50 8 U.S. at31 3, 1 13 S. Ct. at21 01 . For t he se reas on s, the Po li cy

is acco rd eda st ro ng pre su m pt io n o f va li di ty. Thi s co urt, am on g o th ers , has he ldth atde nyin g c on vi ct edfel on s ce rta in
en ti tl em en ts do es no t v io la te th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e. Se e, e.g ., Joh ns on v. 11Gov erno r o

f Fla. , 40 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 26 –1 22 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) (fi nd in g n o e qu al pr ot ect io n v io la ti oninde nyin g c on vi ct edfel on s the rig htto vo te ); Tu rn er v. Gli ckma n , 20 7 F .3d41 9, 4 24 –2 5 (7 th Cir . 20 00 ) (fi nd in g n o e qu al pro te ct io n vi ol at io n t o d en y

co nv ic te d fe lo ns fed eral foo d- st am p p ro gr am

be ne fit s) ; But le r v. Apf el , 14 4 F .3d62 2, 6 25 (9th C ir. 1 99 8) (fi nd in g n o e qu al pro te ct io n v io la ti on to de ny con vi ct edfel on hi s s oc ia l s ecu rit y ret ire m en t b en efi ts whi le in carc erat ed ). Lik ewis e, we co nc lu de th atth e co ns erv at io n o f fu nd s co ns ti tu te s a r at io na l b as is
on whi chto de ny ass is tanc e to co nv ic te d fe lo ns an d s ex off en de rs . Here, th e reco rdsh ows th atBrev ardCo un ty recei ve s $ 50 ,07 6 t o a ll oc at e to it s l ow- in co m e ci ti zen s, an d t he Po li cy

pri or it iz es award s o f as si st an ce b y ex cl ud in g c on vi ct ed fel on s an d re gi st eredsex off en de rs . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atHou st on ’s Equ al Pro te ct io n c la im

ha s n o m eri t. C
. Unl aw fu l Bi ll of Attai nder The U.S. Con st itut io n p ro vi de s tha t “ [n ]o Bil l o f Att ai nd er o r ex po stfact o Law sh al l b e p as se d.” U.S. Con st . art . I, § 9 , cl. 3 . A bil l o f at ta in de r is “ a la w th atleg is la ti ve ly det erm in es gu il t an d i nf li ct s p un is hm en t upo n a n i de nt ifi ab le in di vi du al witho utpro vi si on of t he pro te ct io ns of ajud ic ia l tria l.” Ni xo n v . Adm’r of Gen. Servs . , 43 3 U.S. 4 25 , 46 8, 9 7 S . Ct. 2 77 7, 2 80 3 (1 97 7) . Hou st on arg ue s th atth e Po li cy

si ng le s o utasc ert ai nabl e m em be rs of agro up who alo ne are s ub ject
12to it s p ro vi si on s an d i nf li ct s p un is hm en t o n t he m witho utjud ic ia l ac ti on , andth us , th e Po li cy

is anun lawfu l b il l o f at ta in de r un de r th e U.S. an d F lo rid a Co ns ti tu ti on s. W e h ol d t ha t the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atth e Po li cy ne ithe r de te rm in edgu il t n orin fli ct edpu ni sh m en t o n Ho us to n a ndwas the refo re n ota bi ll of att ai nd er. As d is cu ss edab ov e, th e Po li cy furth ers th e n on -p un it iv e g oa l o f al lo cat in g re so ur ces , andno in te ntto pu ni sh canbe est ab li sh edfro m th e rec or d. Bec au se th is cla im

ha s n o m eri t, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n thi s i ss ue . D. In va li d Ex Po st

Fact o L aw Si m il arl y , Hou st on arg ue s tha t the Po li cy , as app li edto pe rs on s re qu ire d t o reg is te r as sex off

en de rs , am ou nt s t o p un is hm en t b ey on d t he cri min al san ct io ns th atledto th e reg is tra ti on , andth us , th e Po li cy is anex po stfact o la w invi ol at io n of th e U.S. an d F lo rid a Co ns ti tu ti on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y fou ndth at Hou st on ’s den ia l o f weathe riz at io n a ss is ta nc e was no t p en al inna tu re. The
un de rlyin g s ex off

en de r reg is tra ti on st atut e is no t p un it iv e, bu t ra th er re gu lato ry , an d t he refo re d oe s n otvi ol at e th e ex po stfact o c laus e. Se e S mith v . Doe , 53 8 U.S. 84 , 10 5– 10 6, 1 23 S. Ct. 1 14 , 11 54 (20 03 ) (h ol di ng th atAlas ka ’s Sex Offen de r Reg is tra ti on Act d idno t v io la te th e ex po stfact o c laus e) ; Gid de ns v. Stat e , 86 3

13So . 2d12 42 , 12 44 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 04 ). Thu s, Ho us to n’s ar gu m en t i s

witho utm eri t. IV. CONCLUSION Bec au se Hou st on is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f on hi s cl ai m s, we af firm th e d is tri ct
co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s. AFFIRMED.

14