In Doe v. State, Department of Public Safety, the supreme court held that part of Alaska’s sex offender registration law unconstitutionally violated an offender’s due process right to privacy by not providing the offender the opportunity to prove that they are not likely to re-offend and should no longer be required to register. Doe moved from Virginia, where he had been convicted of aggravated sexual battery, to Alaska, where he was required to register as a sex offender under the Alaska Sexual Offender Registration Act (ASORA). Doe stopped re-registering after the state increased how frequently he had to register. After the state brought charges against him for failing to register, Doe challenged the law by arguing that 1) the state lacked jurisdiction to require him to register because ASORA is a punitive rule that shouldn’t apply to an out-of-state conviction, and 2) that ASORA violated his due process right to privacy under the “least restrictive means” test. The superior court ruled for the state on both arguments and Doe appealed. The state argues that 1) ASORA has non-punitive purposes and effects that represent an important state policy interest, and 2) ASORA should be reviewed under a “rational basis” analysis and thus doesn’t violate his substantive due process rights. On appeal, the supreme court first found that the state does have jurisdiction over this issue, holding that the state has a legitimate public safety concern and that requiring registration did not constitute an ex post facto punishment. Second, the court held that the law did substantially burden offenders’ constitutional right to privacy due to concerns of substantial economic or physical harm that could come to offenders, and thus should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny analysis, the court found that requiring anyone convicted of a qualifying crime to register with no opportunity to prove rehabilitation was not the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s policy goal of protecting the public from an offender re-offending. Rather than invalidating ASORA completely, the court ruled that offenders must now have the opportunity to be heard by a superior court to prove that they are no longer a threat and that they should no longer be required to register. However, finding that the question of process was not before them, the court declined to specify what standard or test superior courts should use to review these cases going forward.
 444 P.3d 116 (Alaska 2019).