The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a Missouri law that required registered sex offenders to post a sign on Halloween stating, “No candy or treats at this residence.” The court affirmed the district court’s finding that this specific mandate constitutes compelled speech, violating the First Amendment, though it sent the case back to the lower court to clarify the scope of the resulting injunction.
The ruling centers entirely on subsection 1(3) of Missouri Revised Statute § 589.426 (the “Halloween statute”), which dictates several restrictions for registered sex offenders on October 31st, including avoiding contact with children, staying indoors during specific evening hours, and leaving exterior lights off.
The Case of the Elaborate Displays
The legal challenge was brought by Thomas L. Sanderson, a registered sex offender who, before his conviction, was known for creating large, elaborate Halloween displays. After his release from prison, Sanderson initially believed he was exempt from the 2008 Halloween statute because it was enacted after his conviction. For fourteen years, he continued his displays, only to be arrested and convicted in 2022 for violating the statute.
While Sanderson’s conviction for that specific violation was not the focus of this appeal, he launched a broader facial challenge against the law under the First Amendment. He argued that forcing him to post the specific, mandated sign amounted to the government compelling his speech.
After issuing a preliminary injunction just before Halloween 2024, the district court held a bench trial and ultimately issued a permanent injunction barring the entire state of Missouri from enforcing the sign requirement. The State of Missouri, represented by Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway, appealed this decision.
Compelled Speech vs. Regulated Conduct
The Eighth Circuit’s analysis began by determining if the sign mandate actually involves speech protected by the First Amendment. The court noted that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak freely but also the right to refrain from speaking.
The State argued that the sign requirement was merely “incidental” to the law’s broader regulation of conduct—specifically, restricting sex offenders’ activities on Halloween. However, the appellate panel disagreed.
Judge Kelly, writing for the court, explained that while other parts of the statute regulate conduct (like staying inside or turning off lights), the sign mandate explicitly requires registrants to post a sign bearing the government’s exact message.
“Because the sign mandate (1) explicitly requires registrants to speak the government’s message in the form of a sign at their residence, and (2) dictates specifically what that sign must say, it compels speech,” the opinion stated. This finding meant the sign mandate was subject to strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review.
Failing Strict Scrutiny: Lack of Narrow Tailoring
To survive strict scrutiny, a law that burdens speech must serve a “compelling interest” and be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest, meaning it must be the least restrictive means available.
The court acknowledged that the State had established a compelling interest in protecting children on Halloween, and neither party disputed this finding on appeal. The crucial issue, therefore, was whether the sign mandate was narrowly tailored.
The State presented testimony from law enforcement, suggesting the signs would help ensure compliance, increase enforcement efficiency, and provide an extra layer of protection for children.
However, the evidence presented at trial failed to convince the Eighth Circuit that the signs actually achieved these goals effectively. The court pointed to several significant flaws in the State’s justification:
1. Visibility Issues: The statute did not specify the size or placement of the sign. Officers testified that a compliant sign could be as small as a postage stamp, placed on a back door, or even inside the residence. If the sign isn’t visible to police or trick-or-treaters, it fails to serve any stated purpose of efficiency or protection.
2. Enforcement Efficiency: Law enforcement witnesses admitted that officers could verify compliance with other restrictions—like checking if the lights were off—simply by driving by, without needing to see a sign. The sign did not appear to make enforcement significantly easier or more necessary for officers to leave their vehicles.
3. Child Protection: The court found no convincing evidence that the sign provided any protection beyond the other mandates already in place (staying inside, no candy, lights off). The State’s expert could not demonstrate that a child approaching a darkened house where no one answers presents a risk, provided the registrant is complying with the non-speech restrictions.
“Nothing in the record indicates that a child knocking on a door that no one opens presents a risk to that child,” the court concluded. Therefore, the sign mandate burdened more speech than necessary and could not survive strict scrutiny.
Evidentiary Rulings Upheld
The State also argued that the district court improperly excluded evidence regarding Sanderson’s specific history and dangerousness, suggesting this evidence was necessary to prove the compelling interest prong of the analysis. The Eighth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to exclude this testimony.
Crucially, the court noted that even if Sanderson’s criminal history and the testimony of his underlying victim had been admitted, it would not have changed the outcome. Since the sign mandate failed on the narrow tailoring prong, evidence supporting the compelling interest (which Sanderson had stipulated to anyway) would have been irrelevant to the final decision.
Injunction Remanded
Finally, the court addressed the permanent injunction issued by the district court. Because the injunction was entered before the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Trump v. CASA* (2025), the Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction. It remanded the case back to the district court to re-evaluate and determine the appropriate scope of injunctive relief in light of the new Supreme Court precedent.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the core finding: Missouri cannot force sex offenders to proclaim “No candy or treats at this residence” on Halloween.