Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the Ex Post Facto Clause

QUESTION PRESENTED Numerous jurisdictions require people with certain types of criminal convictions to register their locations with the government. First-generation registration statutes were regulatory, not punitive, and therefore could be applied retroactively without offending the Ex Post Facto Clause. This was in part because the statutes did not include any “in-person appearance requirement|[.]” Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 101 (2003). But legislatures have amended these statutes to add more onerous _ obligations. Washington’s amended statute, which requires homeless registrants like Petitioner to report in person weekly, is “perhaps the most burdensome in the country.” App. 28. Yet contrary to decisions of several jurisdictions and over a dissent, the Washington Court of Appeals held the amended registration statute is not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. The question presented is: Whether the requirement of frequent, inperson reporting renders an law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.