ATSA advocates for a better understanding by the public and decision makers of sexual abuse, assists in the development of sexual abuse prevention strategies, and fosters the implementation of effective treatment and management of offenders in the community. ATSA provides information to legislatures and courts about specific issues and cases under consideration. These statements can be used to educate the public, as well as to offer consideration in the policy debates in administrative offices and in state and national legislatures. ATSA signs all amici briefs independent of other organizations who also may sign on to any particular brief.

The following legislative and court statements have been developed by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Legislative Statements:

• ATSA's Comments on Proposed Title IX Rule Changes (2022)
• Statement on Reproductive Justice from the ATSA Board of Directors (2022)
• Letter to Council of American Law Institute Regarding Proposed Changes to Article 213 of the Model Penal Code (2021)
• ATSA's Comments on Proposed Title IX Rule Changes (2021)
• ATSA's Comments Regarding the proposed rule changes to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act(2020)
• ATSA's Comments on Proposed Title IX Rule Changes (2019)
• ATSA's Comments on Pennsylvania House of Representatives Bill 2507 (2018)
• ATSA's Comments on U.S. House bill HR 1761 (2017)
• ATSA's Comments on the Supplemental Guidelines for Juvenile Registration Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (2016)
• Response of ATSA to Pending Sex Offender Registry Legislation in Missouri (HB 1700) (2012)
• ATSA's Comments on Proposed Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Guidelines (2007)
• Response of ATSA’s Board of Directors to Pending Sex Offender Registry Legislation (HR 4472) (2006)
• Response of ATSA’s Board of Directors to Pending Sex Offender Registry Legislation (HR 3132, S 792 and S 1086) (2005)

Court Responses:

January 2020: ATSA does not support registering youth as “sex offenders.” Such action inhibits their prosocial growth and development, and fails to enhance public safety.

• The Amicus Brief for Juvenile v. Massachusetts will be released at a later date.

April 2019: ATSA’s interest in Pennsylvania v Torsilieri is to promote the use of empirically based assessment, practice, management, and policy strategies.

• Amicus Brief - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. george J. Torsilieri

July 2018: ATSA’s interest in Ohio v Amos is to offer an informed perspective on the current research regarding recidivism rates among sexual offenders and the effective and appropriate use of sanctions.

• Amicus Brief - State of Ohio v. Ronald Amos

July 2017: ATSA submits this amicus brief to share its unique perspective and expertise on the issues that should lead the Court to grant the petition and consider the constitutionality of Minnesota’s sex offender civil commitment system. It is imperative that the Court inform its constitutional decision-making with the current research addressing the reoffending risk of sexual offenders, the current understanding of the basis for civil commitment and other sexual offender legislation, and the current evidence and practices for effective treatment and management of individuals who have committed sexual offenses.

• Amicus Brief - Kevin Scott Karsjens, et al. v. Emily Johnson Piper, et al.

June 2017: North Carolina forbids all registered sex offenders from accessing numerous social networking websites including several sites that primarily provide a forum for communication and gathering information. The following brief asserts that vague and/or broad-based sex offender restrictions are not support by research and have the unintended consequence of weakening, rather than strengthening, public safety.

• Amicus Brief - Lester Gerard Packingham v. North Carolina

August 2016: Argues against retroactively reclassifying individuals who have sexually offended to increase their terms of registration.

• Amicus Brief - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas M. Reed

February 2016: The following declaration asserts that undifferentiated identification of registered sexual offenders to the general public is not based in research and often has the unintended consequences of creating obstacles to community reentry that actually compromises, rather than promotes, public safety as relates to International Megan's Law.

• Declaration of Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers opposing International Megan's Law
• Declaration of Mike Miner opposing International Megan's Law

April 2015: This amicus brief support removing youth, and individuals who offended before the age of 18, from public registries

• Amicus Brief - C.K. Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

March 2014: Amicus Brief filed in conjunction with the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, the Professional Advisory Board to the Coalition for a Useful Registry, and Center for Assessment, Inc. regarding sexual offender management laws in Michigan. The following brief asserts that vague and/or broad-based sex offender restrictions are not supported by research and have the unintended consequence of weakening, rather than strengthening, public safety.

• Amicus Brief - John Does #1-5 and Mary Doe v. Richard Snyder, Governor of the State of Michigan, and Col. Kriste Etue, Director of the Michigan State Police, in their official capacities

February 2014: Amicus Brief filed in conjunction with the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault regarding municipal residence restrictions (Ordinance 34) in Englewood, Colorado.  The following brief asserts that residence restrictions do not enhance public safety or reasonably relate to the deterrence of future criminality and may undermine the state's efforts to supervise and treat offenders.

• Amicus Brief - City of Englewood v. Ryals

February 2014: The following declaration asserts that undifferentiated identification of registered sexual offenders to the general public is not based in  research and often has the unintended consequences of creating obstacles to community reentry that actually compromises, rather than promotes, public safety.

• Declaration of Maia Christopher in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doe v. Washington State Patrol)

February 2014: The following declaration asserts that undifferentiated identification of registered sexual offenders to the general public is not based in research and often has the unintended consequences of creating obstacles to community reentry that actually compromises, rather than promotes, public safety.

• Declaration of Maia Christopher in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doe v. Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs v. Donna Zink)

March 2008: Amicus Brief filed in conjunction with the California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) regarding Proposition 83 (residence restrictions in California). The following brief asserts that residence restrictions do not enhance public safely or reasonably relate to the deterrence of future criminality and may result in harm to the victims it was designed to protect.

• Amicus Brief - Proposition 83

November 2005: Press Release and Amicus Brief - Doe v. Miller - in opposition to sexual offender residence restrictions claiming that such laws harm children. Filed on November 3, 2005 with the United States Supreme Court:

• Press Release
• Amicus Brief - Doe v. Miller

Op-Ed Articles:

• March 2007: Toward a Public Health Response to Sexual Violence