Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s registration requirement as a retroactive punishment?

The assignment is a case needed to be put in a landmark. I will provide an example. thank you

example:

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2004) Eddy Monduy

April 8th, 2019

Questioned Posed: Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s registration requirement as a retroactive punishment?

Holding: The Supreme Court held that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause as the act is nonpunitive. The Supreme Court reasoned that this act was clearly intended as a civil, nonpunitive means of identifying previous offenders for the protection of the public. The Supreme Court also found that the stigma, which could result from registration, did no render the punitive act effectively, since the imposition of any significant affirmative disability or restraint.

History: In 1982, John Doe I and John Doe II were each convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated sexual offense under Alaska law. John Doe I pled nolo contendere to the charge of sexually abusing his daughter over the course of two years. The court granted him custody of his daughter upon his release from prison as it was determined that he was rehabilitated. Doe II also pled nolo contendere to the charge of sexually abusing a fourteen-year-old girl. Both Doe I and Doe II spent eight years in prison and were released in 1990. Alaska enacted the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA) in 1994, which required convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement authorities. Doe I and Doe II along with Doe I’s wife filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in 1994. Their complaint asserted that ASORA violated their procedural and substantive due process rights, their federal constitutional privacy rights, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit chose not to resolve the case on the due process grounds. It rather based its decision on the narrower issue of whether ASORA violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court used the two-step “intent-effects test” to determine whether ASORA’s registration and notification requirements constituted a punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause under the Doe’s claim. After examining the legislative findings and ASORA’s structure, the court found that ASORA’s intent was to address the public’s fear of the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders. The Court concluded that the purpose of the statue was nonpunitive. The court then goes on to the second step of the test, considering the statue’s effect on convicted sex offenders. The Court of Appeals held that the effects of ASORA’s provisions, the statue violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reversed the district’s court’s order by granting summary judgement for the State and remanded the case for further proceedings. The State appealed to the United States Supreme Court, granting certiorari to determine whether ASORA violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Supreme Court considered whether ASORA imposed a punitive registration and public notification burden on sex offenders who had already served prison sentences for their crimes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the Ninth Circuit Court and held that the ASORA’s retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the act is nonpunitive.