What happened
Two men classified at Washington’s highest risk level under the state’s Community Protection Act sued, arguing that registration and notification punished them retroactively and violated their privacy.
124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997)
Washington’s registration and community notification are regulation, not punishment, and publishing public-record facts is not a privacy violation.
Good law. Still followed. Later cases may have narrowed it — see Scope. Binds federal courts in its circuit only. Persuasive, not binding, everywhere else.
Two men classified at Washington’s highest risk level under the state’s Community Protection Act sued, arguing that registration and notification punished them retroactively and violated their privacy.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Act’s registration and notification provisions are regulatory, not punitive, so applying them to earlier offenses is not an ex post facto violation. It found no constitutional privacy interest in information already in the public record, including the general vicinity of a home address.
Russell was one of the first federal appeals decisions on community notification. Its approach — notification shares facts that are already public — ran through federal case law until the Supreme Court adopted a similar view in Smith v. Doe.
The court stressed how narrowly Washington’s law was drawn at the time. It did not approve every form of notification, and the Ninth Circuit later distinguished it when reviewing Alaska’s broader law — the case the Supreme Court reversed in Smith v. Doe.
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.