of demonstrating that the statute “clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.” Nixon v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 576 Pa. 385, 839 A.2d 277, 286 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While the General Assembly may enact laws which impinge on constitutional rights to protect the health, safety, and welfare of society, any restriction is subject to judicial review to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens. Id. As detailed below, we conclude that SORNA’s registration requirements violate juvenile offenders’ due process rights by utilizing the irrebuttable presumption that all juvenile offenders “pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.11(a)(4), because that presumpti 8, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.Ct.
holding that the state may not interfere with an unwed fathers custody rights absent proof of unfitness holding unwed father entitled to hearing on his fitness as a parent before children could be taken from him after death of their mother holding unconstitutional a statute providing for children to be declared dependent and removed from their unwed fathers custody based on the presumption that unwed fathers are unfit parents holding that parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on parental fitness before children are removed from their custody holding due process was violated by the automatic rejection of an unwed fathers custodial relationship without granting the father opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent