Document: 538 U.S. 1 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ET AL.v.DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. No. 01-1231. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 13, 2002. Decided March 5, 2003. Among other things, Connecticut's "Megan's Law" requires persons convicted sexual offenses to register with the Department Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into community, and DPS post a sex offender registry containing registrants' names, addresses, photographs, descriptions on an Internet Website make available public in certain state offices. Respondent Doe (hereinafter respondent), who is subject law, filed 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action behalf himself similarly situated offenders, claiming that law violates, inter alia, Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District granted respondent summary judgment, certified class individuals permanently enjoined law's disclosure provisions. Second Circuit affirmed, concluding such both deprived registered offenders "liberty interest," violated Clause because officials did not afford registrants predeprivation hearing determine whether they are likely be "currently dangerous." Held: Circuit's judgment must reversed due process does require opportunity prove fact material State's statutory scheme. Mere injury reputation, even if defamatory, constitute deprivation liberty interest. Paul v. Davis, 424 693. But assuming, arguendo, has been interest, entitle him establish — he currently dangerous under statute. Cf., e. g., Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433. As explains, requirements turn offender's conviction alone already had procedurally safeguarded contest. Unless can show substantive rule defective (by conflicting Constitution), any current dangerousness bootless exercise. expressly disavows reliance component protections, maintains his challenge strictly procedural one. States barred by principles "procedural process" from drawing classifications. Michael H. Gerald D., 491 110, 120 (plurality opinion). Such claims "must ultimately analyzed" terms process. Id., at 121. Because question properly before Court, it expresses no opinion as violates principles. Pp. 6-8. 271 F. 3d 38, reversed. REHNQUIST, J., delivered which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 8. joined, 9. STEVENS, 110. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General Connecticut, argued cause for petitioners. With briefs were Gregory T. D'Auria, Associate General, Lynn D. Wittenbrink, Perry Zinn Rowthorn, Mark Kohler, Assistant Attorneys General. Solicitor Olson amicus curiae urging reversal. brief McCallum, Deputy Clement, G. Garre, Leonard Schaitman, W. Pennak. Shelley R. Sadin respondents. her Drew Days III, Beth Brinkmann, Seth M. Galanter, Philip Tegeler, Steven Shapiro.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST Court. We certiorari Appeals registry. concluded ex rel. Lee, 44, 46 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). however, decided requirement shall based previous conviction, dangerousness. Indeed, explicitly states have determined registrant dangerous. therefore reverse 2 "Sex serious threat this Nation." McKune Lile, 536 24, 32 (2002) "[T]he victims assault most often juveniles," "[w]hen reenter society, much more than type rearrested new rape or assault." 32-33. like every State, responded these facts enacting statute designed protect its communities help apprehend repeat offenders. applies all criminal against minor, violent nonviolent offenses, felonies committed purpose. Covered Connecticut community. Each provide personal information (including name, address, photograph, DNA sample); notify change residence; periodically submit updated photograph. registration runs 10 years cases; those sexually life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-251, 54-252, 54-254 (2001). 3 compile gathered publicize it. In particular, 54-257, 54-258. Whether made office via Internet, accompanied following warning: "`Any person uses injure, harass commit act included prosecution.'" 54-258a. 4 Before operation, enabled citizens obtain description entering zip code town name. disclaimer appeared first page Website: 5 "`The legislature's decision facilitate access publicly-available about offenses. [DPS] considered assessed specific risk reoffense regard individual prior inclusion within registry, determination Individuals solely virtue record law. main purpose providing data easily accessible, warn individual.'" 3d, 44. 6 Petitioners include agencies charged compiling posting Internet. respondent) Megan's Law. He pursuant Rev. 1979, 1983, Amendment. Specifically, alleged "`dangerous offender,'" "deprives interest reputation combined alteration status without notice meaningful heard." 45-46. claim. 132 Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). court then 7 38 (CA2 2001), holding entitles members "to particularly being labeled publicly disseminated registry." 62. provided hearing, petitioners "`disclosing disseminating public, either printed electronic form (a) Registry (b) concerning [class members]'" "`identifying [them] Registry.'" Ibid. reasoned implicated interest" of: (1) stigmatization "implying" dangerous," (2) imposition "extensive onerous" obligations respondent. 57. From arose obligation, Appeals' view, give demonstrate was "likely certiorari, 535 1077 (2002). 8 693 (1976), we held mere urge us ground that, failed find unnecessary reach question, 9 cases 433 (1971), Goss Lopez, 419 565 (1975), required government accord plaintiff disprove particular set facts. each cases, concededly relevant inquiry hand. Here, seeks consequence 44 ("`Individuals law'" (emphasis added)). No information. 54-258 respondent's nondangerousness simply matter. ("`[DPS] dangerous'"). short, could dangerous, disclosed. provision It may claim actually "recast `procedural process' terms." Reno Flores, 507 292, 308 (1993). Nonetheless, Brief Respondents 44-45, maintains, below, (1989) opinion) original). See also id., (STEVENS, judgment). substantive, procedural, us, express Law 11 Plaintiffs assert right seek cannot showing here. 12 Reversed. Notes: * Briefs ofamici reversal Columbia et al. Robert Rigsby, Corporation Counsel Columbia, Charles L. Reischel, Counsel, Edward E. Schwab, Senior respective jurisdictions follows: Bill Pryor Alabama, Bruce Botelho Alaska, Janet Napolitano Arizona, Lockyer California, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, A. Butterworth Florida, Thurbert Baker Georgia, Earl I. Anzai Hawaii, James Ryan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Carla J. Stovall Kansas, Albert B. Chandler III Kentucky, P. Ieyoub Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Jennifer Granholm Michigan, Mike Moore Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Patricia Madrid New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer York, Torres Northern Mariana Islands, Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Anabelle Rodríguez Puerto Rico, Condon South Carolina, Barnett Dakota, Summers Tennessee, John Cornyn Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, West Doyle Wisconsin; National Governors Association Ruda Crowley; Center Community Interest Tufo; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger. amici affirmance Treatment Sexual Abusers David Reiser; Office Defender State Jersey Peter Garcia, Z. Buncher, Brian Neff; Service Klein, Samia Fam, Corinne Beckwith. Lucy Dalglish Gregg Leslie Reporters Committee Freedom Press curiae. 13 concurring. 14 I join Court's add implicate respondents, categorical abrogation validly enacted suffices "due" just one age 16 operate motor vehicle abrogate Absent (which respondents here) so fundamental so-called "substantive" process, eliminate That why, demonstrates, additional "process" enabling (in analogous case suggested) 15-year-old safe driver. 15 whom GINSBURG joins, agree observation today's foreclose dissemination actionable principle. To extent libel might least claim, our reference disclaimer, ante, would stand way plaintiff. write separately only note still open test respondents' situation. 17 allows possibility avoiding reporting A exempt convict altogether offense unconsented contact, 54-251(c) (2001), intercourse minor aged between while two older 19 time offense, 54-251(b). discretion limit enforcement purposes necessary identity victim related or, assault, spouse cohabitor. 54-255(a), (b).* restrict publication information, rest finding safety. 54-251(b), (b). thus recognizes some sweep others justifying special publicity legislative courts responsible granting exemptions belies argument unequipped separate warrant do not. 18 line drawn legislature sensibly eligible discretionary relief is, choices affecting rights, Equal Protection See, Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise Constitutional 17.6 (3d ed. 1999); Tribe, American 16-34 (2d 1988). refusal allow to, say, 19-year-old consensual reviewable determination. Today's occasion speak possible merits standard scrutiny order when considering merely rejection immunize schemes equal protection challenge. [For STEVENS see 110.] mitigate retroactive effects statute, categories October 1, 1988, June 30, 1999, allowed petition restricted 54-255(c)(1)-(4). similar became 1998, incarcerated subsequently registrable 54-255(c)(5)

Category: 0