Tobin Mueller v. Rick Raemisch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the requirement to continually update sex-offender registry information, but not to challenge the prohibition on changing their names, since they had no intention of doing so
• finding no evidence that a $100 annual fee was “grossly disproportionate to the annual cost of keeping track of a sex offender registrant”
• noting this provision applied “straightforwardly” to the registration requirement, with criminal consequences for a failure to comply
• upholding the annual registration fee for the sex offender database because it was “intended to compensate the state for the expense of maintaining the sex offender registry”
• standing to challenge only the provisions of Wisconsin’s sex-offender registry that currently threatened them
• 'The burden of proving that it is a fine is on the plaintiffs . . . .'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).