Shaw v Patton

Shaw challenged certain reporting, residency and prohibitions on loitering under Oklahoma’s sex offender registration statute arguing violations of ex post facto protections. The district court granted judgment to Patton. The panel affirmed. It first held that the statute was retroactively applied here as it was passed after Shaw was convicted of sexual assault in Texas. It held that the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s holding of certain aspects of the registration regime unconstitutional was not binding on the panel as the United States Supreme Court sets the law on ex post factor issue and the Oklahoma case was based on Oklahoma constitutional law. It held the reporting and residency requirements did not resemble historical punishments as the reporting requirement is far less intrusive than probation and has far fewer restraints on liberty while the residency restrictions are not banishment as that involves permanent expulsion form a jurisdiction. It held the in person reporting requirement and residential restriction are not punitive as harsher requirements, like a lifetime ban from certain professions, have been upheld against ex post facto attacks as have various reporting requirements and residential restrictions (such as mandatory relocation if a school or other protected site is built near a offenders home) in other jurisdictions. It held the requirements did not have a sufficiently strong determent effect to overcome Oklahoma’s nonpunitive societal protective reasons given Shaw’s transient status and the seriousness of his offense and the requirements rationally promote those societal protective reasons by assisting in the investigation of sex crimes and limiting contact between offenders and children. It held the requirements were not excessive in relation to the interest served as they are not particularly harsh and are reasonable. It finally held that Shaw failed to preserve his challenge to the loitering restriction.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v PJ Utah, LLC (Bonn intervenor)

Bonn appealed the denial of his motion to intervene and the district court’s order that he arbitrate his claim against PJ. The panel reversed in part and dismissed in part. It held that eth motion to intervene had to be granted as Bonn had an unconditional right under 42 USC 2000e-5(f)(1) and Rule of Civil Procedure 24((a)(1) requires granting intervenor status when there is mandatory statutory right. The panel dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the arbitration order holding it lacked jurisdiction as Commission’s claim remained active and the arbitration order thus was not final as it did not dispose of all the claims of all parties.