J.D. v. State, 2026 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 18 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2026)

The Delaware Family Court granted a motion for relief from sex offender registration requirements in Delaware in a case involving an individual who was adjudicated of a sex offense as a youth in New Jersey and now works full-time in Delaware. The court stated in relevant part:

First, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, a state may not “discriminat[e] against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States.” Second, under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a] citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses” and “claim citizenship . . . and an equality of rights with every other citizen.” Finally, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, a state may neither irrationally discriminate against citizens of other states nor arbitrarily and oppressively interfere with their exercise of basic liberties.

Taken together, these provisions collectively guarantee that “all citizens [must] be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.” . . . .  Although the burden of registration in a new state is not alone an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel, federal and state courts have struck down statutes that in effect impose enhanced registration requirements on those arriving from other states. 

. . . . 

Here, too, denying in-state relief to out-of-state individuals found delinquent of sex offenses as children based solely on their residence at the time of their offense cannot be justified under even the most lenient rational-basis standard. As explained above, it is incompatible with the legislature’s stated purposes and the balance it has sought to strike between the goals of juvenile rehabilitation and public safety. Further, whether a child offender may be rehabilitated is independent from the state where the child’s offense occurred. No conceivable legislative purpose would be served by permitting earlier modification or relief for those adjudicated in Delaware than for those who were adjudicated in another state and only later chose to travel to Delaware to work or to find a new home. Consequently, because any other interpretation would be both patently absurd and unconstitutional, the Court finds that 11 Del. C. § 4123 must “reasonabl[y] and suitabl[y]” be read to grant jurisdiction over Petitioner’s case.