of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757 (2004) (en banc). That case involved an individual with an extensive history of sex offenses against children, who admitted he was going to the city parks “cruising” and “looking” for children. Id. at 759-60. The city issued a unilateral order banning the plaintiff from the city parks without a hearing. Id. at 760. Unlike this case, the regulation did not implicate the First Amendment so we upheld it under the deferential rational basis review. Id. at 764, 773. Other laws restricting sex offenders’ proximity to schools or parks have been similarly upheld under rational basis review because courts have found they do not implicate the First Amendment or involve a fundamental right. See, e.g., Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S.
holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause