A federal appeals court has handed registrants a significant loss. In Doe v. Olson (No. 25-1892), decided October 5th, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Missouri’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) against a broad set of constitutional challenges. On the Registry Matters podcast, hosts Andy and Larry walked through the opinion. Their verdict was blunt: this was not a win.
The case matters well beyond Missouri. The ruling is now the law of the circuit, and other courts may cite it. Here is what happened, why the plaintiffs lost, and what options remain.
The Case at a Glance
The plaintiffs, identified as the Does, appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. They argued the district court erred in five ways:
- Finding Missouri SORA is not punitive, and denying Eighth Amendment and ex post facto claims.
- Applying the wrong standard to their due process and equal protection claims.
- Finding the First Amendment overbreadth claim inadequately pled.
- Rejecting the claim that the online identifier reporting requirement is unconstitutionally vague.
- Dismissing the family members’ claims sua sponte.
“Sua sponte” simply means the court acted on its own, without a request from either party.
How Missouri’s Registry Tiers Work
Missouri sorts registrants into tiers based on the offense of conviction. There is no individual risk assessment, which is what makes it a categorical approach.
- Tier one: 15 years on the registry, annual in-person reporting. Federal law allows a five-year reduction, but Missouri did not include it.
- Tier two: 25 years, with reporting at least twice a year, and monthly if required for Adam Walsh Act compliance.
- Tier three: lifetime registration with reporting every 90 days.
The system closely tracks the federal Adam Walsh Act, apart from that missing reduction.
Why the Family Members’ Claims Failed
The plaintiffs described real hardship. Children were shunned and harassed, and missed parent involvement at school events. One spouse lost a job opportunity, and another described severe stress.
The courts were unmoved, for several reasons. SORA places no duties on family members. Much of the evidence concerned location restrictions that SORA does not govern. The plaintiffs did not cite authority making family effects relevant to constitutionality. And, as Larry noted, the family members were not put on the stand to build an evidentiary record.
Pleading Problems
The courts struggled to tell whether the plaintiffs were bringing facial challenges, as-applied challenges, or both. A footnote saying both, with the argument that labels do not matter, drew the court’s description of “mystifying.” Larry stressed a basic rule: plead with enough specificity that the other side can respond.
The First Amendment overbreadth claims suffered similarly. The district court found the complaint gave no notice of claims that SORA requires too much information or impairs internet access, and the plaintiffs did not contest that finding below, so it was not preserved for appeal.
Eighth Amendment and Ex Post Facto Claims
To win on the Eighth Amendment, plaintiffs must first show the law is punitive, then show it is cruel and unusual. That means either a punishment considered cruel when the Bill of Rights was adopted, or one that violates modern standards of decency. The court found no national consensus against registration schemes like Missouri’s.
On ex post facto, the Eighth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, which found the tiered system non-punitive. Federal courts typically defer to a state’s highest court unless a clear federal constitutional violation is shown. Evidence, not rhetoric, was missing.
The South Carolina Argument
The plaintiffs pointed to Powell v. Keel, where South Carolina’s high court found lifetime registration for all registrants without review violated due process. But the Eighth Circuit noted South Carolina later adopted a three-tier system, and its court then rejected a substantive due process challenge to it.
Smaller Issues
The phrase “other identity information” was held not unconstitutionally vague, though Larry was unconvinced since the patrol form lists required items. Due process and equal protection claims were not adequately pled. The online identifier issue was resolved when the parties accepted modifying the highway patrol form.
What Happens Next
Options are limited. A rehearing or en banc petition is unlikely to succeed with a unanimous panel and no dissent to cite. A cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible but, in Larry’s view, ill-advised. A loss there could make the ruling binding nationwide rather than persuasive authority.
The Eighth Circuit covers Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All are now bound by this ruling, and meaningful change in the court’s makeup is at least a decade away.
Key Takeaways
- Plead claims clearly and specifically, stating whether they are facial or as-applied.
- Build an evidentiary record with witnesses and proof, not just argument.
- Preserve issues in the lower court so they can be raised on appeal.
- Think carefully about strategy before seeking Supreme Court review.
The lesson for future litigants is clear: strong constitutional theories need strong records to survive.