No. 21-6719
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights due-process eighth-amendment ex-post-facto juvenile-adjudication juvenile-justice retroactive-application retroactive-law sex-offender-registration
Key Terms:
Punishment
Punishment
Latest Conference:
2022-04-14
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Do the Ex Post Facto Clause and Eighth Amendment permit a retroactive imposition of registration obligations on a person adjudicated of a sex offense as a child?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do the Ex Post Facto Clause and Eighth Amendment permit a state to retroactively impose registration obligations on a person who was adjudicated of a sex offense when he was a child? 2. Does the “intent-effects” test in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2008), apply to a person who was adjudicated of a sex offense when he was a child? ii
Docket Entries
2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-09
Brief of respondent Kansas in opposition filed.
2022-02-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 9, 2022.
2022-02-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 7, 2022 to March 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-06
Response Requested. (Due February 7, 2022)
2021-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-27
Waiver of right of respondent Kansas to respond filed.
2021-12-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 24, 2022)
Attorneys
N.R.
Jennifer Creswell Roth — Kansas Appellate Defender Office, Petitioner