By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 2, 2023//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Brian Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction
Case No.: 22-2150
Officials: Easterbrook, St. Eve, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act
The Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Ind. Code § 11-8-8-1 et seq., requires sex offenders who study, work, or reside in Indiana to register with the State. Plaintiffs are all Indiana residents who committed sex offenses either before the Indiana General Assembly enacted SORA or before the Assembly amended SORA to cover their specific offense. They challenge SORA’s “other-jurisdiction” provision—which requires them to register under SORA because they have a duty to register in another jurisdiction, see Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5(b)(1)—under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Seventh Circuit previously rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that SORA violated their constitutional right to travel and the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Hope v. Comm’r of Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 9 F.4th 513, 523– 28, 530–35 (7th Cir. 2021) (en banc). The Seventh Circuit also concluded that the district court incorrectly applied strict scrutiny to plaintiffs’ equal protection claim and remanded for the narrow purpose of determining whether the other-jurisdiction provision survives rational basis review. Id. at 529, 534–35. On remand, the district court concluded that requiring the registration of pre-SORA sex offenders who have a registration obligation in another jurisdiction is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
Reversed.
Decided 04/27/23