Litigation request or proposal form

Litigation Request: Constitutional Challenges

NARSOL's Legal Committee reviews challenges to laws and ordinances that violate the U.S. Constitution and harm large groups of people. We join existing cases and start strategically important new ones.

This form is not for individual cases. NARSOL cannot take on your personal conviction, sentence, registration status, or dispute with an agency. A request qualifies only if a win in court would clearly benefit many people.

I understand this form is only for constitutional challenges that affect many people, not for my individual case.

1. What law or ordinance are you challenging? *

Give its name or citation if you know it.

Is this a state, local, or federal law? *

State County or city ordinance Federal

2. Who does this law affect? *

Describe the group of people this law harms, for example "everyone on the registry in Ohio" or "registrants living in Clark County." Include a rough number if you know it.

3. What constitutional right does it violate, and how? *

Explain which right is violated (for example due process, ex post facto, First Amendment, or equal protection) and how the law violates it.

4. Is there already a case in court? *

Yes, a case is already pending No, this would be a new case

Is it a criminal or civil case?

Criminal Civil

Where is it now?

Trial court On appeal

Case number

5. Has an attorney reviewed this challenge and agreed it has merit? *

Yes No

6. Have you, or others joining the challenge, set aside funds to help cover costs? (optional)

Yes No

7. Do all parties understand that the court may not let them stay anonymous, and that they will need to share details about their original convictions? *

Yes No

Constitutional challenges usually require plaintiffs to be named in court. We can't move forward with a request unless all parties accept this.

Disclaimer

This Legal Intake form should not be considered in any way to be legal advice. You should not rely on the information you get from this site and should speak with a lawyer to get advice on your specific situation. This Legal Intake form is not a solicitation or an offer by NARSOL to represent you. We cannot promise that the information you provide will lead to any specific action on the part of NARSOL. By submitting this intake form, you agree that NARSOL's legal action project may use the information you give us, as long as we don't include identifying information such as name, address, email or phone number. Information may be used for any of the following purposes: legislative testimony, litigation; contacting a city, state or federal agency; or telling your story to the public, including the media. All identifying information will be kept strictly confidential unless you give express permission to use it or unless we are ordered to turn it over by a court. (We will continue to attempt to prevent any disclosure by the court).

I understand

Your contact information

All fields are required.

First name

Last name

Address

City

State

Zip

Phone

Leave this empty

Thank you

Your request has been sent to NARSOL's Legal Committee for review.

How to write a strong answer

NARSOL limits litigation to specific constitutional claims that affect large groups of registered or convicted people and have a strong chance of success. A violation that affects no one but you will generally not be pursued.

Ask yourself first

Has this issue already been challenged? Often someone else has already filed a case on the same issue.
Does it affect anyone other than me? If it affects many registrants in your county or state, it may be a viable challenge.

Be specific

Vague complaints are hard to evaluate. Tell us what specific law or constitutional language you believe has been violated, and who it affects. We don't expect you to know everything about the law, but the more detail you give, the better.

Answers that don't give us enough

Too vague"I am being treated unfairly because I cannot live with my own children while under supervision." What's missing: what authority the state is using to impose this rule, and whether it applies to others in the same situation.

Too vague"Due to my PTSD, the stress caused by the registry system is overwhelming me and causing poor health." What's missing: which specific constitutional guarantee is being violated.

Too vague"I am a Tier 2 registrant from Nevada and moved to Texas. They have made me a Tier 3 and I must register now for life. This can't be legal." What's missing: does this happen to everyone who moves in with the same tier? What Texas code are the authorities citing? What was the conviction code in Nevada?

Any of these may be true. But do they violate a constitutional right, and do they affect more than one person?

Answers that give us something to work with

The codes and case names below are made up for illustration.

Strong"My county sheriff has put a 9 PM weekend curfew on registrants. No state registry law (see VT Code 8964-1) allows this. They are threatening us with jail if we are out after 9 PM. We have a local lawyer who will take our case."

Strong"Our state registry has no way to get off it (see Code §55-54321). Nearly everyone on it is listed for life, with no assessment of anyone's individual risk. Due process under the 5th Amendment should provide a way off (see Franklin v. State, 2017). I want to challenge the registration length requirement (see §45-12-1(b)). A group of us are willing to work together, and the ACLU is interested in joining."

Strong"I was convicted under code XYZ and required to register for 10 years in Indiana. I moved to Tennessee, and they require me and many others to register for life (see TN Code §55-675-45). My conviction does not require lifetime registration under Tennessee law for the same crime. A case just like mine got the registrant removed, but our State Supreme Court won't apply it to others (see Redikulous v. TN, 2021). An attorney is willing to take our case as a group."

Strong"I am on federal supervised release (see Code 342-21(a)3). My PO has banned all internet use, which goes well beyond the 'least restrictive means' supervision requires. Other federal district courts have already overturned this restriction (see Hopeless v. Washington, 2020, and Banned v. US, 2021). Several people in my treatment group are under the same ban, and I am certain it is happening elsewhere."