State of Iowa vs. Ronnie Dobbs, Brief for the Appellant (2022)

Abstract

2022 Supreme Court Competition Problem:

The Iowa legislature recently created a new requirement for Iowans who are required to register as sex offenders. Iowa Code section 692A.201(1) requires any registered sex offender to get a special driver's license (or non-driving ID) that includes a label, in orange capital letters: "SEX OFFENDER". Section 692A.201(2) makes it a crime to alter or deface that special ID card, with the intent to defraud.

Ronnie Dobbs is a Tier III sex offender. He registered, and he went to the Story County Sheriff’s Office to verify his registration information (as he is required to do, thrice a year.) In July 2021, after this new law had just passed, Dobbs was told that he needed the special ID. He got a new driver’s license. But during his next visit, Story County discovered that he had altered that new license by scratching out the “SEX OFFENDER” mark (or so the State has alleged). Dobbs was charged with violating section 692A.201(2).

Dobbs moved to dismiss the charge, on the grounds that section 692A.201 violated his First Amendment rights by compelling his speech. The State resisted. But the district court agreed with Dobbs that the branded ID card was an attempt to force Dobbs to carry and display the State's message about him, and it granted Dobbs's motion to dismiss. The State appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court retained the appeal to determine whether section 692A.201 violates the First Amendment.

Generally, when the government speaks on its own behalf, it may choose what it says. So, if this is government speech (and not compelled private speech), then it is probably constitutional. If it is compelled private speech, then the State has to show that this law withstands strict scrutiny, which means the measure must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. That is a tough standard to satisfy -- but it's not impossible, and some compelled disclosures have withstood strict scrutiny before. It is up to the students to try to convince this Court to adopt their view of whether this is government speech or compelled private speech, and (if it does burden a constitutional right) whether it would withstand that exacting level of scrutiny.