John Doe, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.
No. 5:22-cv-00855-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2026)
Federal prosecutors cannot charge a Californian with failing to register under SORNA unless California first certifies that its law required the person to register.
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Decided
April 9, 2026
Reach
Binds the parties; the injunction protects California residents
Not yet final. Final judgment entered April 9, 2026 (Dkt. 169). Whether the government appealed could not be confirmed from the public record as of November 4, 2026. Binds the parties to the case. Other courts may find it persuasive.
What happened
Three Californians whose state registration duty had ended, two through set-aside convictions and certificates of rehabilitation and one through a § 290.5 removal petition, sued with the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws. They challenged the Attorney General's 2021 SORNA rule (28 C.F.R. Part 72), which says a person must comply with federal registration requirements whether or not the state has adopted them. California will not accept their registrations. The court granted a preliminary injunction in January 2023; both sides' appeals of it were voluntarily dismissed that April.
What the court decided
On cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Bernal rejected the nondelegation and statutory-authority claims and dismissed the First Amendment claim for lack of standing. He granted the due process claim. Where state law makes registration impossible, he held, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 and the rule let the government presume the act of non-registration from proof that the person was not registered and knew of the duty, and then shift the burden to the defendant to prove the “uncontrollable circumstances” defense. He held that this is the kind of presumption Patterson v. New York forbids. The court made the preliminary injunction permanent: before any § 2250 prosecution of a California resident, the government must obtain California's certification that the person was required to register under California law. In a prosecution for failing to provide specific information, it must also obtain certification that California law allows that information to be furnished.
Why it matters to the Registry
The 2023 preliminary injunction was a forecast that the plaintiffs were likely to win. This is the ruling on the merits. It holds that the federal failure-to-register crime cannot be enforced against people their own state will not register, unless the government first rules out that state-law bar. The court declined to extend the same requirement to other kinds of uncontrollable circumstances, because that question was not before it.
What it did not decide
The injunction protects California residents only, and only against § 2250 prosecutions. The court upheld the rule against the nondelegation and statutory-authority challenges, and it did not decide the First Amendment claim. It says nothing about state registration duties. As a district-court judgment it binds only the parties.
Developments
Complaint filed by John Doe #1 and ACSOL, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Preliminary injunction granted on the due process claim (Dkt. 55).
Ninth Circuit dismisses both sides' appeals of the preliminary injunction on their joint motion.
Summary judgment: due process claim granted, other claims dismissed; preliminary injunction made permanent; case closed (Dkt. 169).
Added to the library. No notice of appeal found in public sources; CourtListener's docket could not be read.
Last verified against the sources above on November 4, 2026.
Legal Disclaimer
These are plain-language summaries of court decisions, written for general education. A ruling binds only the courts beneath the court that issued it, later decisions and new laws can change what it means, and how it applies to any one person depends on facts a summary cannot capture. Read the opinion itself, and talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before relying on any case. This page is not legal advice.