Halloween—a festive night of costumes, candy, and childhood joy. But for some citizens in Missouri, it has also become a season of heightened scrutiny and legal contention. As the state attempts to reinstate a law requiring certain individuals to display signs on their property announcing they do not have candy or treats available, the debate over privacy, compelled speech, and constitutional rights has ramped up, leading to a lively court case covered in spirited oral arguments.

At the heart of this dispute is whether the government can compel individuals labeled as PFRs (Persons Forced to Register, often due to sex offense convictions) to display signs on Halloween—announcements that many argue could expose them and their families to risk, stigmatization, and constitutional violations.

In this blog post, we unpack the legal questions, humorous courtroom moments, and deeper societal issues tied to this controversial law. Along the way, we’ll provide context and analysis about what this case means for First Amendment rights and legal restrictions placed on marginalized groups.

The Missouri Law: What’s Being Debated?

The Missouri law at issue mandates that PFRs display a sign on their property during Halloween that states they do not have candy or treats available. This law ostensibly aims to protect children by discouraging them from approaching homes for trick-or-treating where someone on the registry resides.

The challenge centers on several key questions:

  • Does this law violate the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech?
  • Is this measure unnecessarily broad, such that it punishes all PFRs regardless of whether they pose a legitimate threat or not?
  • Does existing public access to offender registries render this requirement redundant?

The case represents more than just Halloween decorations; it’s a broader fight over constitutional liberties versus public safety measures.

A Courtroom Quip: When Signs and Quicksand Collide

During oral arguments in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, humor found its way into the serious proceedings. One member of the judicial panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson, compared Missouri’s Halloween sign mandate to a North Dakota law requiring property owners to post signs if there is quicksand on their land.

“In North Dakota, if there’s quicksand, we’re required to post it,” noted Erickson. The judge went on to observe the absurdity of such a comparison, musing that cattle—potentially at risk of quicksand—can’t read the signs anyway.

While some might dismiss this analogy as a humorous aside, it reflects a deeper critique of the Missouri law: Is the requirement of signs truly effective in advancing safety, or is it an overreach? Erickson’s comment hinted that the law could lean into performative, rather than practical, territory.

Compelled Speech and Narrow Tailoring: A Legal Analysis

The constitutional sticking point of the Missouri law lies in its potential violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, opponents argue that forcing PFRs to post these Halloween signs constitutes “compelled speech,” a government mandate requiring individuals to convey a message they might not endorse.

What Does the First Amendment Say?

The First Amendment largely protects individuals from government-compelled speech. However, as legal expert Larry noted during the discussion, compelled speech is not inherently unconstitutional—there are circumstances under which it is allowed. For example, restaurant owners are required to publicly post health inspection grades, and drivers must alert authorities to vision impairments when applying for a license.

The key legal criteria here are:

  1. Compelled speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
  2. The restriction or mandate must use the least restrictive means available.

Missouri’s argument hinges on public safety. The state claims that PFR signage prevents potentially dangerous interactions between children and registrants—starting with children being deterred from approaching their homes. However, critics like attorney Janice Bellucci argue that this rationale falls apart upon closer examination.

A Flawed Approach? Overreach and Stigmatization

A recurring critique of Missouri’s argument is its sweeping application. The law applies to all PFRs, regardless of the specifics of their offenses or the likelihood they pose a danger to children. For example, in this case, the plaintiff—identified as Sanderson—has hosted elaborate Halloween displays for years, attracting hundreds of visitors in his neighborhood. His conviction, which stems from an incident two decades ago involving a 16-year-old, has no documented connection to past Halloween events.

Do Blanket Laws Work?

As Bellucci observed during oral arguments, anyone concerned about visiting the home of a PFR during Halloween could simply consult the existing public registry. Most states, including Missouri, already maintain comprehensive online sex offender registries that provide exact names and addresses. The signage law imposes an additional, arguably redundant, layer of disclosure—one that critics say exposes PFRs and their families to heightened risks of harassment and vandalism.

Beyond technical redundancy, the law represents an overreach in targeting an entire group instead of individuals who might pose a credible and particularized threat. As Larry noted, a more narrowly tailored law addressing genuine risks might escape such constitutional challenges in court.

The Human Impact: Sanderson’s Halloween Dilemma

Sanderson, the plaintiff in this case, provides a poignant example of the ways such laws affect real lives. Since 2002, Sanderson has been a fixture of his Hazelwood, Missouri, neighborhood’s Halloween traditions. Despite his designation as a PFR, he has neither reoffended nor shown any evidence of being a risk to minors during Halloween. Yet in 2022, local police officers approached his home on Halloween and charged him with violating the sign requirement, despite his understanding that he had been “grandfathered” out of the mandate.

The Cost of Stigma

Beyond the legal ramifications, laws like Missouri’s carry social implications. Signs placed on someone’s property can vilify not only the individual but also their families. As Bellucci argued, “placement of a government-mandated sign on a person’s home exposes all who live there to the dangers of significant physical harm and possible damage or destruction of their property.”

Critics Say: Is This Even “Common Sense”?

In their brief, Missouri’s legal team described the law as “common sense,” arguing that keeping children safe around Halloween requires minimal effort. However, this assertion came under scrutiny. Opponents pointed out that Halloween traditions today involve significant parental supervision. As Larry aptly observed, children rarely trick-or-treat without adults maintaining a watchful eye from the sidewalk.

Given such realities, critics argue that the law offers little practical value.

Final Thoughts and Takeaways

At its core, Missouri’s effort to revive the Halloween sign law engages fundamental legal, social, and ethical questions. The court’s three-judge panel—comprising appointees of two conservative presidents and one liberal—has taken the case under advisement, with no set timetable for a decision.

Whatever the outcome, this debate highlights the tension between safety measures and constitutional rights. Here are a few key takeaways:

  1. Precision Matters: Laws targeting public safety must be carefully and narrowly tailored to address legitimate risks without infringing on constitutional protections.
  2. Redundancy Undermines Effectiveness: Existing measures, like public registries, can often achieve the same goals as more invasive laws.
  3. The Human Cost of Litigation: Policies that stigmatize and sweep entire groups into their orbit risk harming families, reputations, and community cohesion.

As Halloween approaches, the spotlight remains on Missouri’s legal battle. Will the law stand as a precautionary measure or crumble under the weight of constitutional scrutiny? All eyes—and possibly some clever costumes—are watching.