John Doe, I Jane Doe John Doe, II v. Bill Tandeske Gregg D. Renkes

This is the second time this case has been before this court. See Doe v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.2001), rev’d and remanded, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003). The first time, we overturned the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State and held that Alaska’s sex offender registration and notification statute, 1994 Alaska Sess. Laws 41 , violated the Ex Post Facto Clause as to plaintiffs who were convicted of crimes before the enactment of the statute. Otte, 259 F.3d at 979 . Our resolution of the Does’ ex post facto claim made it unnecessary for us to decide at that time whether the Act violated plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive due process rights. Id. at 982 . However, the subsequent reversal of Doe v. Otte by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe now requires us to address those claims. The facts and the discussion of the relevant statutory provisions- are set forth in Doe v. Otte, and accordingly, we proceed directly to our analysis.

I

The Does assert that Alaska’s sex offender registration law violates their right to procedural due process because the Act deprives them of protected liberty interests without notice or the…