cruel and unusual punishment:
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision
and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the
Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial
Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston,
MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-11822
JOHN DOE1 & others2 vs. CITY OF LYNN.
Essex. April 9, 2015. - August 28, 2015.
Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, &
Hines, JJ.
Sex Offender. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances,
Home rule. Constitutional Law, Home Rule Amendment.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on
April 12, 2012.
The case was heard by Timothy Q. Feeley, J., on a motion
for partial summary judgment, and entry of final judgment was
ordered by him.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for
direct appellate review.
John A. Kiernan (Robert E. Koosa with him) for the
defendant.
John Reinstein (Benjamin H. Keehn, Committee for Public
Counsel Services, & Jessie J. Rossman with him) for the
plaintiffs.
1 A pseudonym.
2 Charles Coe and Paul Poe, also pseudonyms. The named plaintiffs are registered sex offenders suing on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated.
Amy M. Belger, Andrew S. Crouch, & Jennifer J. Cox, for
Jacob Wetterling Resource Center & others, amici curiae,
submitted a brief.
HINES, J. In this appeal, we determine whether an
ordinance imposing restrictions on the right of sex offenders to
reside in the city of Lynn (city) is prohibited by the Home Rule
Amendment, art. 89, § 6, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution, and the Home Rule Procedures Act, G. L. c. 43B,§ 13. The plaintiffs, who represent a certified class of sex offenders subject to the ordinance, challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance on various grounds.3 A judge in the Superior Court invalidated the ordinance under the Home Rule Amendment. The city appealed and we granted the plaintiffs' application for direct appellate review. We affirm the Superior Court judgment based on our conclusion that the ordinance is inconsistent with the comprehensive statutory scheme governing the oversight of convicted sex offenders, and
3 The complaint alleged the following claims under the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions: (1) violation of the Home Rule Amendment (Massachusetts Constitution); (2) violation of the clauses prohibiting ex post facto laws; (3) violation of the right to substantive due process; (4) violation of the right to familial association; (5) violation of the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and cruel or unusual punishment under art. 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (6) violation of the right to travel.
2
therefore, it fails to pass muster under the Home Rule Amendment
and the Home Rule Procedures Act.4
