772 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2014)
Requiring registrants to report every online identifier within 24 hours likely violates the First Amendment.
Good law. Still followed. Later cases may have narrowed it — see Scope. Binds federal courts in its circuit only. Persuasive, not binding, everywhere else.
California voters passed Proposition 35, the CASE Act, in 2012. It required registrants to report every internet identifier and service provider they used, and any change within 24 hours. Registrants and a reform group sued, and the district court blocked enforcement.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. Registrants who have completed probation and parole have full First Amendment protection, and the Act likely burdens protected, anonymous speech more than necessary: it was unclear what had to be reported, there were too few safeguards against public release, and the 24-hour rule was too broad.
Doe v. Harris was one of the first appellate rulings to apply full First Amendment scrutiny to online reporting rules, three years before Packingham. Its three concerns — clarity, confidentiality and the reporting deadline — are the checklist courts now use for internet identifier laws.
It was a preliminary injunction ruling — that the challengers were likely to win — not a final judgment on the merits. It did not hold that a state can never collect online identifiers.
Last verified against the sources above on September 30, 2026.
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.