By Philip . . . NARSOL & WVRSOL WV Registry Fee Challenge – State Files Motion to Dismiss
⚖️ Case: Basham, et al. v Mitchell
📜 Overview of Motion
The State of West Virginia has filed a motion asking the federal court to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the state’s annual $125 sex offender registry fee in Basham v. Mitchell. A motion to dismiss asks the court to end a case before it proceeds further because, even if the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are accepted as true, the law does not provide a valid claim.
In its filing, the State argues that the annual registry fee is not a criminal punishment, but rather a civil fee intended to help fund the operation of the registry and related public safety functions. Because of that, the State contends the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive punishment does not apply and that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
📜 What This Means
- The State is asking the court to end the lawsuit without allowing it to move forward.
- The State argues that the annual registry fee is a regulatory funding measure rather than an additional punishment for past convictions.
- The motion relies heavily on previous decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts that have generally upheld sex offender registration laws as civil (not criminal) in nature.
- The plaintiffs disagree with that position and maintain that the annual fee and its enforcement through property liens amount to a new punishment imposed years after their convictions, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
- The court has not ruled on the motion. Filing a motion does not mean the court agrees with either side.
📜Current Status / Next Steps
The case remains in its early stages. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to file a written response explaining why they believe the lawsuit should continue. After the briefing is complete, the court will decide whether the case should be dismissed or allowed to proceed.
References:
State’s Motion to Dismiss: Basham et al. v. Mitchell v2.26-cv-00408_v7-21-26_State’s Motion to Dismiss
State’s Motion to Dismiss (memo): Basham et al. v. Mitchell v2.26-cv-00408_v7-21-26_State’s Motion to Dismiss (memo)
So at first it wasn’t regulatory but to be used for “Mental Health” for officers. Now they are claiming it IS Regulatory.
They believe use for “mental health” is all part of the registry process, while we know it has nothing to do with it, and that that is “regulatory” in nature NOT “punitive,” so therefor a retro punishment (aka Ex Post Facto) argument is moot.
I strongly support NARSOL and WVRSOL continuing this lawsuit against West Virginia’s $125 annual registry fee. This is not a legitimate administrative cost — it is another layer of punishment layered on top of registration requirements that already last for years or a lifetime.
The fee is imposed solely because of a past conviction, applies for life in many cases, has no hardship waiver or ability-to-pay exception, and triggers property liens for nonpayment. Worse, the money does not even fund the registry itself. It goes to unrelated State Police mental-health programs and general operations. That makes it a punitive fine, not a regulatory fee.
Applying this kind of financial penalty retroactively to people whose sentences were already final violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and turns what the state claims is a civil regulatory scheme into additional criminal-style punishment. The Constitution does not allow the state to keep piling on new penalties years after the original case is closed.
Please keep fighting this. The case should proceed so the courts can properly examine whether West Virginia is using the registry as a vehicle for ongoing punishment rather than genuine public-safety regulation.