## Facts

- Nine anonymous plaintiffs were convicted under Louisiana’s pre-2011 Crime Against Nature by Solicitation (CANS) statute, La. Rev. Stat. § 14:89(A)(2), for agreeing to engage in oral sex for compensation.
- Louisiana law allowed the same underlying conduct—solicitation of oral or anal sex for money—to be prosecuted under either the prostitution statute, La. Rev. Stat. § 14:82, or the CANS statute.
- Individuals convicted under CANS were required to register as sex offenders under Louisiana’s registration law, while individuals convicted under the prostitution statute for the same conduct were not required to register.
- Plaintiffs’ conduct and convictions occurred before August 15, 2011.
- As a consequence of their CANS convictions, plaintiffs were subject to sex-offender registration obligations and related public identification and notification requirements.
- Plaintiffs brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against state and local officials in their official capacities, alleging an Equal Protection Clause violation.

## Issues

1. Whether individuals convicted under CANS and individuals convicted under the prostitution statute for the same solicitation conduct were similarly situated for equal-protection purposes.
2. Whether Louisiana had a rational basis for requiring sex-offender registration for CANS offenders but not for prostitution offenders engaging in the same conduct.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that the differential sex-offender registration requirement for CANS convictions, when the same conduct could be prosecuted as prostitution without registration, violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court declared unconstitutional the application of Louisiana’s sex-offender registration scheme to individuals convicted solely under CANS for consensual, compensated oral/anal sex solicitation.

## Legal Principles

- The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating similarly situated persons differently without an adequate governmental justification.
- Under rational-basis review, a classification must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could provide a rational relation to a legitimate state interest; a classification fails if it is wholly arbitrary.
- When two statutes reach essentially identical conduct, the state may not impose materially harsher collateral consequences on one prosecutable class (here, sex-offender registration) without a rational basis tied to a legitimate governmental purpose.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Louisiana created two classes punished for the same solicitation conduct but burdened only one class with sex-offender registration, and that this disparity lacked a rational basis; summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs on equal-protection grounds.


Doe v. Jindal, 851 F. Supp. 2d 995 (E.D. La. 2012)