A Missouri statute “Any person required to register as a sexual offender … shall be required on October thirty-first of each year to: Avoid all Halloween-related contact with children; Remain inside his or her residence between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. unless required to be elsewhere for just cause, including but not limited to employment or medical emergencies; Post a sign at his or her residence stating, “No candy or treats at this residence”; Leave all outside residential lighting off during the evening hours after 5 p.m.“
Sanderson v. Hanaway, decided yesterday by Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly and joined by Judges James Loken and Ralph Erickson, struck down the part of the law that required the sign as “compelled speech,” a First Amendment violation. Using the “strict scrutiny” test that requires a compelling state interest and a provision that is “narrowly structured” to minimize the burden on individual rights, the Court found the mandatory sign provision unnecessary and unreasonable given the law’s other requirements.
I agree. The sign mandate amounted to a required “I am a registered sex offender” declaration. On Halloween, that kind of message is likely to attract a lot worse “tricks” than toilet paper on some trees. Ethics Alarms has visited this issue repeatedly, most recently in May of 2025, but the harassment and persecution of sex offenders already raises serious ethical questions, including “pre-crime.” The whole law seems like gratuitous virtue-signaling using an already persecuted group as a cheap target. The rest of the law, however, was upheld.
An amusing note on the Trump Derangement front: even a legal report on a Missouri Halloween law managed to be twisted into a justification for an anti-Trump slap. “This is good news for Trump, but it would have been hilarious to see him forced to put that sign outside of the White House,” writes a commenter at The Volokh Conspiracy.
What assholes these people are….
Ethics Alarms 
On Halloweer night, I stay home with the lights turned off, and do not have candy available. Am I then to be designated as a “Sex offender.”
There will be whispers…
There are places that require sex offenders to attend mandatory meetings on Halloween night during trick- or-treating hours.
Last I heard, Biden still puts out his “Free Showers” sign in Wilmington.
Speaking of compelled speech, the supreme court picked up Wilson v. Hawaii. Hawaii passed a law that bans carrying a gun onto private property open to the public without a sign explicitly permitting the carry of a gun. Not only are the plantiffs arguing on second amendment grounds, they are arguing on first amendment grounds. Their filing included the argument that concealed carry is unpopular in Hawaii, and by making it a requirement to openly reveal someone has an unpopular opinion opens them to public ridicule, making this a first amendment violation.
Good lawying on that argument.
This type of legislation was also enacted in NY after the Bruen decision. Hochul and the state government went ballistic after the decision. It will be interesting to see their reaction to this if it is overturned.
On July 1, 2022, Gov. Hochul signed legislation that made “no carry” the default for private property, unless deemed permissible by property owners. Property owners who do decide to allow concealed carry will have to post signage saying concealed carry is allowed on the premises.
Is this Wilson v. Hawaii or Wolford v. Lopez that the Supreme court will hear?
Wolford v. Lopez: This is a 2023 civil lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” which bans carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 3, 2025, and scheduled it for the current term.
Key Dates for Wolford v. Lopez (2026)
My mistake, it is Wilford v. Lopez.