Michael A. McGuire v. Steven T. Marshall

USCA11 Case: 15-10958 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 1 of 81 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 15-10958 ____________________ MICHAEL A. MCGUIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross Appellee, versus STEVEN T. MARSHALL, DERRICK CUNNINGHAM, JOHN RICHARDSON, Defendants-Appellees Cross Appellants, USCA11 Case: 15-10958 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 2 of 81 2 Opinion of the Court 15-10958 CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-01027-WKW-CSC ____________________ ∗ Before JILL PRYOR, ED CARNES, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Michael McGuire is required to register as a sex offender under the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“ASORCNA” or the “Act”), Ala. Code § 15-20A-1 et seq. For as long as he lives in Alabama, Mr. McGuire must report in person each quarter to law enforcement. ASORCNA also subjects individuals, like Mr. McGuire, who are required to register as sex offenders (“registrants”) to a variety of other restrictions. A registrant generally cannot live or work within ∗ Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 15-10958 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 3 of 81 15-10958 Opinion of the Court 3 2,000 feet of a school or childcare center. 1 A registrant who is homeless must report in person each week to provide law enforcement with updated information. And a registrant must notify law enforcement before traveling away from his residence for three or more consecutive days. In addition, when a registrant moves to a new home, the Act requires law enforcement to mail flyers to the registrant’s neighbors informing them of the registrant’s status as a sex offender. In this lawsuit, Mr. McGuire sued the Alabama Attorney General and others, claiming that some provisions of ASORCNA impose retroactive punishment in violation of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment against Mr. McGuire, concluding that the retroactive application of these provisions did not amount to punishment. After careful review, we agree with the district court. Accordingly, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. 2 In Part I, we discuss the factual background and procedural history of Mr. McGuire’s challenge to ASORCNA. In Part II, we walk through ASORCNA’s relevant provisions. In Part III, we identify the applicable standard of review. In Part IV, we address 1 ASORCNA includes some exceptions to the employment and residency restrictions. See infra n.12. 2 We vacate and remand in part because some of Mr. McGuire’s challenges are now moot. See infra Section IV. USCA11 Case: 15-10958 Date Filed: 10/03/2022 Page: 4 of 81 4 Opinion of the Court 15-10958 mootness. In Part V, we set forth the “intent-effects” framework used to determine whether the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits a law’s retroactive application. In Part VI, we apply this framework to analyze whether the Ex Post Facto Clause …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals