Arthur v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Robert L. Arthur’s conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under the District of Columbia Sex Offense Registration Act. The court held that retroactive application of the Act did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the registration and notification scheme is civil and remedial rather than punitive. Relying on prior precedent, the court rejected both facial and as-applied challenges based on the Act’s registration, notification, reporting, and alleged employment and housing effects.

Holdings

1. SORA is a civil and remedial regulatory scheme rather than a punitive criminal penalty, and Arthur did not provide the clearest proof necessary to overcome the legislature's civil intent or this court's prior holding that SORA does not inflict punishment.
2. Because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had definitively construed SORA as civil, Arthur could not establish an as-applied Ex Post Facto violation merely by showing the effects SORA had on him as a single individual.
3. Arthur failed to show that quarterly in-person verification was punitive or excessive either facially or as applied to him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether retroactive application of the District of Columbia Sex Offense Registration Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because SORA is punitive in purpose or effect.
2. Whether SORA's requirements are punitive as applied to Arthur based on alleged employment loss, exclusion from his mother's public housing unit, in-person reporting requirements, and stigma.
3. Whether the requirement of quarterly in-person verification is punitive or excessive under SORA.

Disposition

affirmed