Connecticut Department of Public Safety, et al. v. John Doe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated (538 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 5, 2003 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 538 U.S. 1 · 123 S. Ct. 1160
- Decided
- March 5, 2003
- Term
- October Term 2002
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticut’s sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a “liberty interest,” and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be “currently dangerous.” Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. “Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion). “[T]he victims of sex assault are most often juveniles,” and “[w]hen convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be…
Excerpt of a 9,557-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.