This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D enacted the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act (Act) called 'Megan's Law.' The law contains two components: a registration requirement and a notification system. Both are retroactive. The Act requires any 'sex offender or child kidnapper who is physically present in the state' to register, either with the Department of Corrections or with the local law enforcement authorities (if the individual is at liberty). If still in prison, a covered sex offender must register within 30 days before release; otherwise, he must do so within a working day of his conviction or of entering the State. The sex offender must provide his name, aliases, identifying features, address, place of employment, date of birth, conviction information, driver's license number, information about vehicles to which he has access, and postconviction treatment history. He must permit the authorities to photograph and fingerprint him. The Alaska Department of Public Safety maintains a central registry of sex offenders. A sex offender who knowingly fails to comply with the Act is subject to criminal prosecution. The following information is made available to the public: 'the sex offender's or child kidnapper's name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, description[,] license [and] identification numbers of motor vehicles, place of employment, date of birth, crime for which convicted, date of conviction, place and court of conviction, length and conditions of sentence, and a statement as to whether the offender or kidnapper is in compliance with [the update] requirements . . . or cannot be located.' Alaska has chosen to make most of the nonconfidential information available on the Internet. Doe 1 (P) was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated sex offense. He pleaded nolo contendere after a court determination that he had sexually abused his daughter for two years, when she was between the ages of 9 and 11. John Doe II (P) entered a nolo contendere plea to sexual abuse of a 14-year-old child. Both were released from prison in 1990 and completed rehabilitative programs for sex offenders. Ps were convicted before the passage of the Act but are covered by it. Ps brought an action under R42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to declare the Act void as to them under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, § 10, cl. 1, of the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted summary judgment for Ds. The Court of Appeals determined the state legislature had intended the Act to be a nonpunitive, civilregulatory scheme; but, in disagreement with the District Court, it held the effects of the Act were punitive despite the legislature's intent. It held that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.