Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I et al.
538 U.S. 84 · No. 01-729 · 2002 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Mar 5, 2003 · argued Nov 13, 2002
Criminal procedure · Ex post facto (state)
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed and remanded. Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), was a court case in the United States which questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements. Under the Act, any sex offender must register with the Department of Corrections or local law enforcement within one business day of entering the state. This information is forwarded to the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a public database. Fingerprints, Social Security number, anticipated change of address, and medical treatment after the offense are kept confidential. The offender's name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, driver's license number, motor vehicle identification numbers, place of employment, date of birth, crime, date and place of conviction, and length and conditions of sentence are part of the public record, maintained on the Internet.
Smith v. Doe questioned the constitutionality of the act's retroactive requirements. John Does I and II were convicted of aggravated assault before the act's passage and filed suit, claiming the act was punitive and violated the ex post facto clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The district court ruled against the Does, ruling that the act was nonpunitive. The appeals court sided with the Does that the act was in fact punitive and violated ex post facto.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2002 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
David SouterWrote a concurrence
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. BotelhoState (Alaska)
- Respondent
- John Doe I et al.Person convicted of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article I, Section 10 (state bill of attainder or ex post facto law)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 5, 2003DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho won.
- Nov 13, 2002ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Alaska U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
9 other argued cases since 1946 on ex post facto (state), newest first.
- Marion Reynolds Stogner v. California539 U.S. 607Jun 26, 2003 · 539 U.S. 607Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Connecticut Department of Public Safety, et al. v. John Doe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated538 U.S. 1Mar 5, 2003 · 538 U.S. 1Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- J. Wayne Garner, Former Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, et al. v. Robert L. Jones529 U.S. 244Mar 28, 2000 · 529 U.S. 244Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Kenneth Lynce v. Hamilton Mathis, Superintendent, Tomoka Correctional Institution, et al.519 U.S. 433Feb 19, 1997 · 519 U.S. 433Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- California Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jose Ramon Morales514 U.S. 499Apr 25, 1995 · 514 U.S. 499Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division v. Youngblood497 U.S. 37Jun 21, 1990 · 497 U.S. 37Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Miller v. Florida482 U.S. 423Jun 9, 1987 · 482 U.S. 423Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Weaver v. Graham, Governor of Florida450 U.S. 24Feb 24, 1981 · 450 U.S. 24Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Dobbert v. Florida432 U.S. 282Jun 17, 1977 · 432 U.S. 282Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.