Unconstitutional Ruling Thrown Out for Minnesota’s Sex Offender Program

Federal Appeals Court Throws Out Judges Decision

MINNEAPOLIS – Today, a federal appeals court tossed out a ruling that the Minnesota sex offender program is unconstitutional.

A Minnesota judge ruled the program unconstitutional in the summer of 2015.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank cited how rarely anyone gets released from the program and ordered several changes.

Those changes included included assessing the more than 700 people in the program to see which ones should be put on a path for release.

Frank had declared that the program, which keeps sex offenders confined indefinitely after they complete their prison sentences, needs to be reformed.

Only a handful of offenders have been provisionally released to community-based settings in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s 20-plus-year history.

UPDATE 10:30 A.M.

Governor Dayton has announced he is welcoming a federal appeals court ruling affirming to constitutionality of the state’s sex offender program. Dayton and his administration worked to lower the court’s ruling, in 2015.

Dayton stated that he will continue his efforts to improve the program, including seeking funding for less-restrictive facilities for offenders.  He says the ruling “means that we can proceed at a pace that we can afford and we can manage.”

State Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper calls the program “an important took to protect public safety and deliver court-ordered treatment to sex offenders.” She called on the Legislature to provide the needed resources to run the program “so we can continue to keep our communities safe.”

UPDATE 11:05 A.M.

Lead attorney, Dan Gustafson, of the nearly 700 people confined to the state Sex Offender Program says they’re “really disappointed” with the federal appeals court ruling that the program is constitutional.

Gustafson says their options include asking the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision issued by a three-judge panel Tuesday, or taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court. He says they’re not giving up quietly and that he expects a quick decision.

He says that the panel got it wrong when it said the district court should have used a lower standard fro determining whether the program violates their due-process rights.