Doe v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

650 F.Supp.3d 957

John DOE, et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

Case No. EDCV 22-855 JGB (SPx)

United States District Court, C.D. California

Filed January 13, 2023

Jeremy Brennan Talcott, Pacific Legal Foundation, Fullerton, CA, Caleb J. Kruckenberg, Pro Hac Vice, Steven Simpson, Pacific Legal Foundation, Arlington, VA, for John Doe, et al.

Jeremy Newman, Kathryn L. Wyer, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Joanne I. Osinoff, AUSA — Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA, for U.S. Department of Justice, et al.

Proceedings: Order GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 44) (IN CHAMBERS)

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. ("Motion," Dkt. No. 44.) On September 26, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the first motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 39.) Accordingly, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, as well as the previous oral argument of the parties, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Posture

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs John Doe [#1] ("Mr. Doe #1") and the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws ("ACSOL") filed a complaint against the United States Department of Justice and Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity (collectively, "Defendants"). ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 2.)

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. ("First Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Dkt. No. 13.) The same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiffs also filed a Declaration of Janice Bellucci (Dkt. No. 16) and Declaration of John Doe [#1] (Dkt. No. 14-1). On June 24, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition. ("Opposition to First Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Dkt. No. 21.) On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs replied. ("Reply ISO First Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Dkt. No. 22.) On July 11, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of time for Defendants to answer the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 23.) On July 12, 2022, the Court approved the stipulation. (Dkt. No. 25.) On July 15, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction from July 18, 2022 to August 1, 2022. (Dkt. No. 27.) On July 25, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction to August 8, 2022. (Dkt. No. 29.) On July 27, 2022, the Court approved the stipulation. (Dkt. No. 30.) On August 5, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction from August 8, 2022 to August 15, 2022. (Dkt. No. 32.) On August 12, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction from August 15, 2022 to August 29, 2022. (Dkt. No. 33.) On August 16, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 34.) The same day, the Court approved the stipulation, continuing the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction from August 29, 2022 to September 12, 2022. (Dkt. No. 35.) On September 9, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction from September 12, 2022 to September 26, 2022. (Dkt. No. 36.) On September 26, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 39.)

On September 28, 2022, the Court denied the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice. ("Order Denying First Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Dkt. No. 40.) The Court denied the First Motion for Preliminary Injunction for lack of standing and granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by October 11, 2022. (Id.)

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiffs John Doe #1, John Doe #2 ("Mr. Doe #2"), John Doe # 3 ("Mr. Doe #3"), John Doe #4 ("Mr. Doe #4"), and ACSOL (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a first amended complaint. ("FAC," Dkt. No. 41.) The FAC alleges four causes of action: (1) violation of the U.S. Constitution—non-delegation doctrine and separation of powers; (2) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(c)—rule in excess of statutory authority; (3) violation of the U.S. Constitution—due process; and (4) violation of the U.S. Constitution—First Amendment. (See FAC.) On October 17, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of time for Defendants to answer the FAC. (Dkt. No. 42.) On October 18, 2022, the Court approved the stipulation. (Dkt. No. 43.)

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Motion. (Motion.) In support of the Motion, Plaintiffs filed the following documents:

• Declaration of John Doe #1 ("Doe #1 Decl.," Dkt. No. 44-2, Ex. A);

• Declaration of John Doe #2 ("Doe #2 Decl.," Dkt. No. 44-3, Ex. B);

• Declaration of John Doe #3 ("Doe #3 Decl.," Dkt. No. 44-4, Ex. C);

• Declaration of John Doe #4 ("Doe #4 Decl.," Dkt. No. 44-5, Ex. D); and

• Declaration of Janice Bellucci ("Bellucci Decl.," Dkt. No. 44-6, Ex. E).

The same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to proceed using pseudonyms. (Dkt. No. 45.) On October 20, 2022, the Court approved the motion for leave to proceed using pseudonyms. (Dkt. No. 46.) On November 3, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the Motion. (Dkt. No. 48.) On November 4, 2022, the Court approved the stipulation, continuing the hearing on the Motion from December 5, 2022 to December 21, 2022. (Dkt. No. 49.)

Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion on November 30, 2022. ("Opposition," Dkt. No. 50.) On December 7, 2022, Plaintiffs replied. ("Reply," Dkt. No. 51.)

On December 7, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing on the Motion. (Dkt. No. 52.) On December 8, 2022, the Court approved the stipulation, continuing the hearing on the Motion from December 21, 2022 to January 13, 2022. (Dkt. No. 53.) On January 12, 2023, the Court vacated the hearing on the Motion set for January 13, 2023. (Dkt. No. 54.)

B. Statutory Background

In 2006, Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Pub. L. No. 109-248, §§ 102-155, 120 Stat. 587 (codified in part at 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901 et seq.); see H.R. Rep. 109-218(I), at 27 (emphasizing "gaps and problems with existing Federal and State laws" due to "lack of uniformity" in state registration requirements and notification obligations); see also Nichols v. U.S., 578 U.S. 104, 111-12, 136 S.Ct. 1113, 194 L.Ed.2d 324 (2016) ("We are mindful that SORNA's purpose was to make more uniform what had remained a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems with loopholes and deficiencies that had resulted in an estimated 100,000 sex offenders becoming 'missing' or 'lost.'") (internal quotations and citation omitted).

SORNA "requires those convicted of certain sex crimes to provide state governments with (and to update) information, such as names and current addresses, for inclusion on state and federal sex offender registries." Reynolds v. U.S., 565 U.S. 432, 434, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012).

SORNA is spending clause legislation and sets forth standards for states and territories to follow, and conditions federal funding on the jurisdictions' substantial implementation of its requirements. 34 U.S.C. §§ 20912(a), 20927(a), 20913. It provides that "each jurisdiction shall maintain a jurisdiction—wide sex offender registry conforming to the requirements" of the statute. 34 U.S.C. § 20912(a). It also directs the Attorney General to "issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement" its provisions. 34 U.S.C. § 20912(b). SORNA delegates to the Attorney General "the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with" the requirement to register with an applicable jurisdiction. 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d); see also Gundy v. United States, — U.S. —, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (2019). In addition to a list of specific requirements set forth by Congress, 34 U.S.C. § 20914(a)(1-6), SORNA states that a sex offender "shall provide ... to the appropriate official for inclusion in the sex offender registry" "[a]ny other information required by the Attorney General." Id. (a)(8). It also requires the registrant to provide "[i]nformation relating to intended travel of the sex offender outside the United States, including any anticipated dates and places of departure, arrival, or return, carrier and flight numbers for air travel, destination country and address or other contact information therein, means and purpose of travel, and any other itinerary or other travel-related information required by the Attorney General." Id. (a)(7). Congress dictated that a registrant must provide and update the information required under 34 U.S.C. § 20914(a) "in conformity with any time and manner requirements prescribed by the Attorney General." Id. (c).

SORNA defines a "sex offender" as "an individual who was convicted of a sex offense." 34 U.S.C. § 20911(1). The law makes it a crime for a person who is "required to register" under the Act and who "travels in interstate or foreign commerce" to knowingly fail to register or update a registration. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)). The crime is punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(3). The same provision establishes an affirmative defense where "uncontrollable circumstances prevented the...