The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Decision: Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Ex Post Facto

Advocates

Richard Blumenthal (Hartford, Connecticut, argued the cause for the petitioners)
Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
Shelley R. Sadin (Argued on behalf of respondents)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
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 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1231/>
(last visited ).