Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Raymond Campbell, proceeding without counsel, challenged a statement printed in his passport declaring that he “was convicted of a sex offense against a minor” and is a covered sex offender under 22 U.S.C. § 212b(c)(1). Campbell alleged that he was charged in Texas with aggravated sexual assault of a child in 2004, successfully completed ten years of deferred-adjudication supervision, and then had the proceedings dismissed under Texas law.
Campbell conceded that he remains required to register as a sex offender and that federal law therefore requires his passport to carry a unique identifier. His challenge focused on whether the identifier could accurately state that he had been “convicted” when his Texas case ended in deferred adjudication and dismissal. The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss. It concluded that Campbell plausibly alleged, at the pleading stage, that the portion of the passport statement saying he “was convicted of a sex offense against a minor” may be false. The court emphasized that a person who is currently required to register may qualify for a marked passport even without having been convicted of such an offense.
The court did not decide whether Campbell’s Texas deferred adjudication legally constitutes a conviction. It found that the governing statutory provisions do not define “conviction” beyond addressing certain juvenile adjudications, and that the government had supplied no binding or persuasive authority directly resolving the issue. The court also granted Campbell leave to amend and ordered him to file an amended complaint by September 28, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A current sex-offender registration obligation can trigger the federal passport-marking requirement even if the registrant was not convicted of an offense against a minor.
- The court found an unresolved question whether a dismissed Texas deferred adjudication counts as a “conviction” for the language printed in Campbell’s passport.
- The ruling addresses only pleading sufficiency and leave to amend; it does not finally determine that the passport statement is false or unlawful.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between the government’s statutory authority to place a unique identifier in a registrant’s passport and the factual accuracy of the particular words used in that identifier. Even when marking is mandatory, the description printed in the passport may still be subject to challenge.
The ruling also leaves open how “conviction” should be interpreted under the relevant federal passport and sex-offender statutes when a person received Texas deferred adjudication and later obtained dismissal of the proceedings.