1. Numerosity.   16. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is an individual who resides in Tennessee and is required to  comply with SORA.   17. Doe #1 was convicted of “indecency with child contact” in 1999. The victim was un- der the age of twelve at the time of the offense for which Doe #1 was convicted. No law in effect  at the time of his offense or conviction prohibited him from residing, spending the night, or being  alone with his own child if he became a parent.   18. Doe #1 was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, which he completed.   19. Nine years later, in 2007, Doe #1 became married. He and his wife had a son in 2014.  No law in effect when his son was born prohibited Doe #1 from residing, spending the night, or  being alone with his son.   2. Commonality.   20. Doe #1’s wife abandoned him and their son in 2017. She moved out of state and has  never come back. His son was 18 months old at the time.   21. Doe #1 has continued raising his son as a single parent. He has not remarried.   22. Doe #1’s son is a low-functioning, non-verbal, autistic child. His son depends on a  routine. If that routine is interrupted, his son engages in disruptive behaviors such as non-stop  screaming and crying.   23. Doe #1 works from home so that he can work and care for his son at the same time.  His daily routine begins with waking up his son, serving him breakfast, and then doing therapeu- tic activities with him to help him learn the alphabet, numbers, shapes, and so on. Doe #1 pre- pares and provides the remaining meals and continues additional therapy in the afternoon involv- ing coloring, balls, and flashcards. Doe #1 is regularly alone with his son.   24. In June 2019, Doe #1 went to make his quarterly report as required by SORA. The  law enforcement officer he reported to asked about his living arrangements with his son. The of- ficer informed Doe #1 that beginning July 1, 2019, he can no longer reside with his now-five- year old son.   25. If Doe #1 cannot reside with or be alone with his son, there will be no one to care for  him. Furthermore, his son suffers from separation anxiety as a result of his mother’s abandon- ment and cannot cope when Doe #1 is gone for any length of time. Doe #1 cannot afford to hire a  special needs caregiver with the skill set to nurture a young, autistic child.   26. Doe #1 loves his son, provides for him, and wants to be involved in his life as much  as possible. Doe #1’s son needs Doe #1 with him to raise him, nurture him, and care for his spe- cial needs.  John Doe #2   27. Plaintiff John Doe #2 is an individual who resides in Tennessee and is required to  comply with SORA.   28. Doe #2 was convicted of attempted aggravated sexual battery in 2005. The victim  was under the age of twelve at the time of the offense for which Doe #2 was convicted. No law  in effect at the time of his offense or conviction prohibited him from residing, spending the night,  or being alone with his own child if he became a parent.   29. At the time of Doe #2’s conviction he was living with his wife and three-year old  daughter. No law in effect when his daughter was born prohibited Doe #2 from residing, spend- ing the night, or being alone with his daughter.   3. Typicality.   30. Doe #2 was sentenced to six years’ probation, which he completed with no infrac- tions, and is on community supervision for life. He completed his therapy. He reports quarterly to  his probation officer. He has had no violations while on community supervision.   31. Doe #2 experiences extreme difficulties obtaining employment as a sex offender, so  he bought a farm and started his own business selling farm goods to restaurants. His wife works  away from home most of the week. His farm occupation allows him to stay home and take care  of their daughter.   32. Doe #2’s daughter is now 16 years old. She has a learning disability. He and his wife  decided to home school their daughter in part because he generally could not go to school func- tions or extracurricular activities. They decided homeschooling their daughter was the best  choice for giving her a reasonably normal childhood.    33. Doe #2 has been his daughter’s day-to-day caretaker and teacher. His daughter suffers  from anxiety and depression. She is very attached to her father and mother. Together, they help  their daughter practice coping skills to overcome her emotional troubles.   34. On June 3, 2019, Doe #2 made his quarterly sex offender registry check-in with his  community supervision probation officer. The officer gave him a memorandum from the Tennes- see Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) dated May 29, 2019. The memorandum was sent to  sex offenders on community supervision for life to inform them of SB 425’s enactment and stat- ed in relevant part:  [O]nce this law goes into effect you will no longer be allowed to live at your current  residence with the minor child/children. You must find alternative housing for your- self or the minor child/children by no later than July 1, 2019. If you and the minor  child/children continue to live together at your current residence after July 1, 2019  you will be in violation of the conditions of the Tennessee Sex Offender Registry and  subject to arrest and prosecution.   35. If Doe #2 is forced to leave his home, there will be no one to homeschool his daugh- ter, because his wife must work. His daughter will be home alone.   36. Nor will there be anyone to run Doe #2’s farm. His business and livelihood will col- lapse and his family will suffer financial loss.   37. Doe #2 loves his daughter and she needs him with her to raise, educate, and nurture  her.  John Doe #3   38. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is an individual who resides in Tennessee and is required to  comply with SORA.   39. Doe #3 was convicted of attempted rape of a child in 2007. The child was under the  age of twelve at the time of the offense for which Doe #3 was convicted. No law in effect at the  time of his offense or conviction prohibited him from residing, spending the night, or being alone  with his own child if he became a parent.   4. Adequacy of Representation.   40. Doe #3 was sentenced to 10 years’ probation, which he completed. He will remain on  community supervision for the rest of his life. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-524(a). No law in effect  at the time of his offense or conviction prohibited him from residing, spending the night, or being  alone with his own child if he became a parent.   41. Doe #3 has actively participated in all sex offender treatment and counseling required  of him.    42. Nine years later, in 2016, Doe #3 became married. He and his wife had a child that  same year and another child in 2018. No law in effect when these children were born prohibited  Doe #3 from residing, spending the night, or being alone with his children.   43. Doe #3 loves his children, provides for them, and wants to be involved in their lives  as much as possible.   44. Doe #3 resides with his wife and children and is often alone with his children due to  his wife’s work schedule. Doe #3 works in construction and his wife works as a nurse. Both  spouses must work and struggle to make ends meet. A relative watches the children during the  day while Doe #3 and his wife are working. The relative leaves when Doe #3 comes home in the  evening. Doe #3 is often the only parent at home in the evening because his wife often works late  shifts and extra shifts to make more money for their family.    45. In June 2019, Doe #3 received the same TDOC memorandum Doe #2 received, in- forming him of SB 425’s enactment and instructing him to find “alternative housing” or be “sub- ject to arrest and prosecution.”   46. If Doe #3 is prohibited from residing, spending the night, or being alone with his  children, he will have to find a new home. This will be extremely difficult. First, many places are  off-limits to him under SORA’s geographical restrictions on where sex offenders may live. See  Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-211(a). Second, many landlords refuse to rent to sex offenders. Third,  Doe #1 and his wife struggle to make ends meet paying for just one residence; they cannot afford  to pay for two residences.   47. Furthermore, if Doe #3 cannot spend the night or be alone with his children, he and  his wife will have to hire a babysitter to watch the children in the evenings. His wife often cannot  watch the children due to her work schedule. When she is home, she is often so exhausted from  work that she cannot watch the children. Yet, due to their financial circumstances, Doe #3 and his  wife cannot afford the additional cost of a babysitter.  48. Defendant William B. Lee is the Governor of the State of Tennessee. He is sued in his  official capacity.   49. Pursuant to Article III, section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution, the supreme executive  power of the state is vested in the governor. The Tennessee Constitution further provides that the  governor shall take care that applicable federal and state laws are faithfully executed. Tenn.  Const., art. III, § 10. Governor Lee signed SB 425 into law. Governor Lee is ultimately responsi- ble for the enforcement of the laws of this state and for supervision of all state departments, in- cluding the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (the “TBI”) and TDOC.   50. Governor Lee is an appropriate defendant in a case challenging the constitutionality  of the SB 425.  TBI Director Rausch   51. Defendant David B. Rausch is the Director of the TBI. He is sued in his official ca- pacity.   52. SORA requires the TBI to maintain Tennessee’s sex offender registry. Tenn. Code  Ann. § 40-39-204(a) & (d), § 40-39-206(a) (2018). The TBI’s responsibilities include enforcing  SORA, maintaining the state’s database of sex offenders, maintaining an Internet-accessible pub- lic sex offender registry, registering offenders (along with other law enforcement agencies), de- veloping registration forms, providing statutorily-required notices to registrants, collecting regis- tration fees, and coordinating with national law enforcement and the national sex offender regis- try. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-203(i), § 40-39-204(a) & (d), § 40-39-205(a) & (f), § 40-39- 206 (2018).   53. The director of the TBI is an appropriate defendant in a case challenging the constitu- tionality of SB 425.  TDOC Commission Parker   54. Tony C. Parker is the Commissioner of TDOC. He is sued in his official capacity.   55. TDOC is one of the agencies charged with enforcing SORA. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 39-202(1) & (14), § 40-39-204(a), § 40-39-208(g),    56. TDOC is the agency responsible for supervising sex offenders sentenced to communi- ty supervision for life. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-524(d).   57. TDOC issued the memorandum received by Doe #2 and Doe #3 to all sex offenders  on community supervision for life whose victims were under the age of twelve.   58. The director of TDOC is an appropriate defendant in a case challenging the constitu- tionality of SB 425.  59. Plaintiffs seek to bring this action for themselves and on behalf of two classes, the  “Ex Post Facto Class” and the “Due Process Class.”  A. Class Definitions.   60. The Ex Post Facto Class is defined as every resident of Tennessee:  (a) Who has been convicted of a “sexual offense” or “violent sexual offense” as de- fined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve;  (b) Whose qualifying offense occurred prior to May 10, 2019; and  (c) Who is the parent of a minor child.   61. The Due Process Class is defined as every resident of Tennessee:  (a) Who has been convicted of a “sexual offense” or “violent sexual offense” as de- fined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve;  and  (b) Who is the parent of a minor child.   62. The names, dates of offense, dates of conviction, presence of minor children in the  home, and other relevant records of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class members are  in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control and are easily ascertainable by Defendants.  B. The Prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) Are Satisfied.   63. On information and belief, the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class are each so  numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. In 2018, news media outlets reported a  study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that found Tennessee had  29,123 registered sex offenders. See <https://newschannel9.com/news/local/tennessee-claims- among-highest-rates-of-registered-sex-offenders-according-to-ncmec-data> (accessed June 26,  2019). If only one-half of one percent of registered offenders fell within the Class definition, that  would exceed 145 people.   64. There are questions of law and fact common to the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Pro- cess Class, including without limitation:  (a) Whether prohibiting a person from residing, spending the night, or being alone  with that person’s minor child substantially interferes with that person’s funda- mental right to direct the education and upbringing of his or her children?  (b) Whether Tennessee may impose such a prohibition based solely on the facts of  that person’s prior criminal conviction and without any trial or other due process?  (c) Whether Tennessee may impose such a prohibition based solely on the facts of  that person’s prior criminal conviction and without any finding, based on an indi- vidualized assessment of that person, that he or she poses a danger to or has  harmed the child?   65. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process  Class. Plaintiffs were convicted of sex offenses against (unrelated) minors under the age of  twelve and presently reside with their own minor children.   66. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Ex Post Facto Class  and Due Process Class. Each Plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the litigation to prosecute his  claims vigorously on behalf of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class members and each  Plaintiff’s interests are aligned with those of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class  members. There are no defenses of a unique nature that may be asserted against any Plaintiff in- dividually, as distinguished from the other members of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process  Class, and the relief sought is common to the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class. No  Plaintiff has any interest that is in conflict with or is antagonistic to the interests of the members  of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class, and no named Plaintiff has any conflict with  any other member of the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class. Plaintiffs have retained  competent counsel to represent them and the Ex Post Facto Class and Due Process Class in this  litigation.  C. The Prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) Are Satisfied.   67. Plaintiffs should be permitted to maintain a class action for declaratory and injunctive  relief because Defendants “have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the  class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting  the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). SB 425 applies to every Ex Post Facto Class and  Due Process Class member without regard to his or her individual circumstances, making certifi- cation for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.   68. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides in relevant  part: “No State shall…pass any…ex post facto Law[.]”   69. The offenses for which Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members have been con- victed and their convictions for those offenses occurred before SB 425’s enactment.   70. Prohibiting Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and  without any finding, based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger  or have caused any harm to their children, constitutes additional punishment of Plaintiffs and Ex  Post Facto Class members for those pre-enactment offenses.   71. SB 425 therefore violates Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution as  applied to Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members.  72. Article I, section 11 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “[L]aws made for the  punishment of acts committed previous to the existence of such laws, and by them only declared  criminal, are contrary to the principles of a free government; wherefore no ex post facto law shall  be made.”   73. The offenses for which Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members have been con- victed and their convictions for those offenses occurred before SB 425’s enactment.   74. Prohibiting Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and  without any finding, based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger  or have caused any harm to their children, constitutes additional punishment of Plaintiffs and Ex  Post Facto Class members for those pre-enactment offenses.   75. SB 425 therefore violates Article I, section 11, of the Tennessee Constitution as ap- plied to Plaintiffs and Ex Post Facto Class members.  76. The First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pro- tect the fundamental right to enter into and carry on certain intimate or private relationships,  which includes family relationships such as those between parents and children.   77. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children, SB 425 substantially interferes with their funda- mental right to enter into and carry on family relationships.   78. SB 425 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because it prohib- its Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the night with, or being  alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and without any finding,  based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger or have caused any  harm to their children.   79. SB 425 therefore violates Plaintiffs’ and Due Process Class members’ fundamental  right under the United States Constitution to enter into and carry on family relationships.  80. Article I, Section 8, of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “That no man shall be  taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or  in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his  peers, or the law of the land.”   81. This provision protects the fundamental right to enter into and carry on certain inti- mate or private relationships, which includes family relationships such as those between parents  and children.   82. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children, SB 425 substantially interferes with their funda- mental right to enter into and carry on family relationships.   83. SB 425 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because it prohib- its Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the night with, or being  alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and without any finding,  based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger or have caused any  harm to their children.   84. SB 425 therefore violates Plaintiffs’ and Due Process Class members’ fundamental  right under the Tennessee Constitution to enter into and carry on family relationships.  85. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their chil- dren.   86. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children, SB 425 substantially interferes with their funda- mental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.   87. SB 425 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because it prohib- its Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the night with, or being  alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and without any finding,  based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger or have caused any  harm to their children.   88. SB 425 therefore violates Plaintiffs’ and Due Process Class members’ fundamental  right under the United States Constitution to direct the education and upbringing of their chil- dren.  89. Article I, Section 8, of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “That no man shall be  taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or  in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his  peers, or the law of the land.”   90. This provision protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and  upbringing of their children.   91. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children, SB 425 substantially interferes with their funda- mental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.   92. SB 425 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because it prohib- its Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the night with, or being  alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and without any finding,  based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger or have caused any  harm to their children.   93. SB 425 therefore violates Plaintiffs’ and Due Process Class members’ fundamental  right under the Tennessee Constitution to direct the education and upbringing of their children.  94. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion forbids a state to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of  law[.]”   95. SB 425 deprives Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members of the liberty of residing,  spending the night with, or being alone with their children due process of law in violation of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  96. Article I, Section 8, of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “That no man shall be  taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or  in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his  peers, or the law of the land.”   97. Under this provision, a person may not be deprived of his liberty without due process  of law.   98. SB 425 deprives Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members of the liberty of residing,  spending the night with, or being alone with their children without due process of law in viola- tion of Article I, Section 8, of the Tennessee Constitution.  99. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “Excessive bail  shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  100.  Prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and  without any finding, based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger  or have caused any harm to their children, constitutes punishment of Plaintiffs and Due Process  Class members for those pre-enactment offenses.  101.  Such punishment is disproportionate and otherwise cruel and unusual.  102.  SB 425 therefore violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion.  Cruel and Unusual Punishment: United States Constitution   Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Tennessee Constitution  103.  Article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: “[E]xcessive bail  shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  104.  Prohibiting Plaintiffs and Due Process Class members from residing, spending the  night with, or being alone with their children based solely on the facts of their convictions and  without any finding, based on an individualized assessment of the parent, that they pose a danger  or have caused any harm to their children, constitutes punishment of Plaintiffs and Due Process  Class members for those pre-enactment offenses.  105.  Such punishment is disproportionate and otherwise cruel and unusual.  106.  SB 425 therefore violates Article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution.  Ex Post Facto Clause: Tennessee Constitution   Ex Post Facto Clause: United States Constitution   Fundamental Right to Family Relationship: United States Constitution   Fundamental Right to Family Relationship: Tennessee Constitution   Fundamental Right to Direct the Education and   Upbringing of Children: Tennessee Constitution   Fundamental Right to Direct the Education and   Upbringing of Children: United States Constitution   Governor Lee   John Doe #1   Procedural Due Process: Tennessee Constitution   Procedural Due Process: United States Constitution  