Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Richard Blumenthal (Hartford, Connecticut, argued the cause for the petitioners)
Shelley R. Sadin (Argued on behalf of respondents)
Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
01-1231
Petitioner: 
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety
Respondent: 
Doe
Opinion: 
538 U.S. 1 (2003)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe , 538 U.S. 1 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1231)
Facts of the Case: 

Connecticut's "Megan's Law" requires persons convicted of sexual offenses to register with the Department of Public Safety and requires the Department to post a sex offender registry containing registrants' names, addresses, photographs, and descriptions on the Internet. John Doe, a convicted sex offender who is subject to the law, filed suit, claiming that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District Court enjoined the law's public disclosure provisions. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing.

Question: 

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require that persons convicted of sexual offenses subject to Connecticut's "Megan's Law" receive a hearing before the public disclosure of their registry?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State's statutory scheme. The Court reasoned that, because the law was not based on an offender's dangerousnes, but rather only on convictions, disclosing an offender on the registry without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court did not answer whether the law violated the substantive component of due process. Justices Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter filed concurring opinions. Justice John Paul Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Sort by Seniority

Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Souter's concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist