Process Clause ... protects the interests in fair- notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation ... [and] a justification sufficient to validate a statute’s prospective application under the Clause may not suffice to warrant its retroactive application,” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), “due process is satisfied ‘simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose.’ ” Franklin Cnty. Convention Facilities Auth. v. Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc., 240 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 730, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984)); c.f. Doe v. Nebraska, 734 F.Supp.2d at 932-33 (<HOLDING>). Here,.the court finds, as a matter of law,
holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause holding that the public disclosure provision of connecticuts sex offender registration law did not violate the due process clause holding that nebraskas sex offender registration statute did not violate due process because it is reasonable to conclude that retroactive application of sora furthers the public safety purpose of the legislation holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process a burden met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose holding retroactive application