Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Doe v. District Attorney

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 25, 2007Published

1Concurrence

ALEXANDER, and SILVER, JJ.,

concurring.

[¶ 38] Today we join a unanimous Court in holding that review of the 1999 and subsequent amendments to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 34-A M.R.S. §§ 11201-11256 (2006); P.L.2007, ch. 393, § 1 (codified at 17-A M.R.S. § 261), needs further development of the facts.

[¶ 39] We write separately to emphasize that Maine’s SORNA must be reviewed according to its unique history; our precedent; the requirements of the Maine Constitution, which distinguish the analysis here from the analysis of the application of sex offender…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Trop v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
  4. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API