Tossing out a “Halloween statute” requirement for registered sex offenders, a federal judge in Missouri determined requiring offenders to feature a sign on their residence on Halloween stating “no candy or treats at this residence,” violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In an Oct. 2 opinion, U.S. District Judge John A. Ross for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the plaintiff, Thomas L. Sanderson’s motion for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the state of Missouri, in arguing that the state’s statute requiring registered sex offenders to post a sign on their residence on the Oct. 31 holiday, stating, “No candy or treats a this residence,” constitutes compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
In Sanderson v. Bailey, Sanderson, a registered sex offender, requested a declaratory judgment finding the requirement unconstitutional. The action came after Sanderson’s 2022 arrest for violating all of the statute’s restrictions, including not following the sign requirement. The court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable across the state.
In making this determination, the court looked to the similar rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth and Eleventh circuits.
Ross pointed to the Eleventh Circuit’s 2022 ruling in McClendon v. Long, which relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Wooley v. Maynard, to determine a local sheriff’s department’s placement of warning signs on registered sex offenders’ homes was a “classic example of compelled speech.” In that case, the sign said, “‘Stop—Warning! NO TRICK-OR-TREAT AT THIS ADDRESS! A COMMUNITY SAFETY MESSAGE FROM BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF GARY LONG.'”
In Wooley, the high court invalidated a New Hampshire couple’s conviction after they allegedly covered the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” on their license plate, concluding that “‘the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,'” the opinion said.
Ross also noted the Eighth Circuit’s 1999 decision in Gralike v. Cook, in which the circuit court said that since the Wooley decision, “the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the prohibition on compelled speech and refined it to apply to cases in which the government orders certain types of speech or speech about certain topics.”
With these rulings in mind, Ross determined Sanderson proved the requirement “compels him to speak a viewpoint in written words, directed to the public, that he does not adhere to, in violation of the First Amendment.”
“Applying ‘the laws’ full range of applications,’ the court further finds that the sign posting requirement compels the speech of any registered offender in Missouri, not just plaintiff,” Ross said. “Defendants require the use of private property to reflect their own message ‘for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public,’ thereby depriving registered offenders of their freedom to speak in their own words or to not speak at all.”
As to the application of strict scrutiny, Ross concluded the sign posting requirement failed to satisfy the standard.
The court determined that the defendants “established a compelling interest in restricting certain conduct of sexual offenders on Halloween that satisfies the strict scrutiny standard,” the requirement isn’t “narrowly tailored to achieve defendants’ interest in protecting children from sex offenders on Hallow, and there are other effective alternatives to achieve that interest.”
“The evidence presented has not shown that the sign posting requirement adds any value to protect children from plaintiff, or other registered sex offenders, on Halloween. Even without the sign posting requirement, defendants are free to enforce the other sections of the Halloween Statute,” Ross said. “Plaintiff can still be charged and prosecuted for keeping his residence’s lights on, participating in Halloween activities that involve contact with children such as handing out candy to trick-or-treaters, or leaving his house absent just cause on Halloween.”
Therefore, the court held that Sanderson was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ross further determined a statewide permanent injunction was warranted, as the violations affect all registered offenders in the Missouri.
Neither, Sanderson’s attorney, Matthew David Fry of Rosenblum Schwartz, in Clayton, Missouri, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, nor Daniel Timothy Mooney of Reichardt Noce of St. Louis, who represented James Hudanick, the police chief of the City of Hazelwood, immediately responded to requests for comment.