The Transformative Potential of Doe v. Snyder

In late 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s concluded in Does #1–5 v. Snyder that Michigan’s sex offender registry and residency restriction law constituted an ex post facto punishment in violation of the constitution. In its decision, the Sixth Circuit engaged with scientific evidence that refutes moralized judgments about sex offenders, specifically that they pose a unique and substantial risk of recidivism. This Essay is intended to highlight the importance of Snyder as an example of the appropriate use of scientific studies in constitutional law. Full Article

PDF version

***with updated link and pdf version. Moderator***

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here is a link to a tremendous article regarding the 6th Circuits decision in Doe v Synder.
A great article as it lays out how this case lays out a framework that the registry itself may and should be attacked.
Let us all reach into our wallets and file suits in Federal Court, using the logic a strategy presented in Doe v Snyder.

The note in this issue of the Boston College Law Review is both informative and encouraging! In addition, it includes a reference to an article written by ACSOL board member Ira Ellman and his wife Tara Ellman regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of an opinion in Psychology Today magazine to conclude that the recidivism rate for registrants is “frightening and high”. Further, the article refers to a case filed a few months ago challenging sex offender laws in the State of Idaho. Reading it is worth your time!

This is a glimmer of hope on the horizon!

NC filed a lawsuit challenging the registry and all its amendments a few weeks ago in similar fashion to doe v snyder. The complaint can be downloaded and viewed here:

Excellent read!! There is a hope that this will all come down! Empirical evidence is our friend. I would just like to know will there be a way to sue the shit out of somebody for the hell we have lived for 20-30 or 40 years!!

If anything demonstrates the tide is turning, it is this!

Well worth the read.

I am surprised she didn’t mention the current SCOTUS case of Packingham VS North Carolina. That could turn out to be our biggest win in a long time, or a nail in our coffin for years.

I’m curious as to the results of this ruling…i.e. does this mean the registry is at least suspended in Michigan?

For whatever reason the link does not work. Try this one
As to the question about the status of the Michigan registry, continue obeying the law. My attorney has stated that the courts do not legislate. They rule on legality. The law stands until the Michigan legislature decides to change the law. The court did say the law is ripe for a challenge

Man, my heart goes out to all you in Michigan.
I wish you all the best.

it’s begun….its only taken 20-30 years but I see an unconstitutional overbroad and overlaoded registry in a death spiral….

If registration is now punishment, then doesn’t it clearly violate Double Jeopardy for someone that gets off the registry in the state of conviction, or was never on it, and then gets put back on when they move to another state? This should be especially true for “differed adjudication” where you were never even convicted of anything.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The United States Supreme Court has construed this language to cover three distinct protections: (1) the right to be free from a second trial following an acquittal for the same crime; (2) the right to be free from a second trial following a conviction for the same offense; and (3) the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime (see e.g. United States v DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 129 [1980]; see also People v Biggs, 1 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2003]). The third category referred to as the “multiple punishments” doctrine is relevant.

Some courts have held that a reasonable expectation of finality arises upon completion of the imposed sentence, resulting in the attachment of jeopardy precluding resentencing (see e.g. United States v Silvers, 90 F3d 95, 101 [4th Cir 1996] [“once a defendant fully serves a sentence for a particular crime, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s bar on multiple punishments prevents any attempt to increase thereafter a sentence for that crime”]; United States v Daddino, 5 F3d 262, 265 [7th Cir 1993] [completion of incarceration portion of sentence precluded any increase of it]; United States v Arrellano-Rios, 799 F2d 520, 524-525 [9th Cir 1986]; Oksanen v United States, 362 F2d 74, 80 [8th Cir 1966] [applying the rule to a completed term of probation]; see also Hernandez v Quarterman, 340 Fed Appx 210, 215 [5th Cir 2009]), unless the government’s time to seek correction of the sentence remains pending at the time of release (see United States v Rico, 902 F2d 1065, 1068-1069 [2d Cir 1990], cert denied sub nom. Baron v United States, 498 U.S. 943 [1990]; see also United States v Cook, 890 F2d 672, 675 [4th Cir 1989]).

Mike r,
I hope yer right brother!

man that’s good shittt Chris…You never seem to stop surprising me with the quality of comments you post with case law to back it up…beautiful….The registry is through its just going to take the right person with the ability to articulate and its done in its current form..Helll the way its going anybody that can type or form a coherent sentence will be able to prevail….

I guess they didn’t want to post my other post criticizing other attorneys so Ill cull my comments so that they are acceptable under this sites rulesss I guess you would say…

I don’t know if you people see what the Boston Legal depart. has done with this article but this is a boilerplate motion that each and everyone of us should fill in with our information and flood the courts with…They provided a comprehensive legal brief along with all relevant case law and citations to every resource which is needed to argue your case…This article is a slam dunk bullet proof argument pre written in legal form that no reasonable mind could possibly refute…This is incredible…

Hi Guys,

I spoke to Ms Aukerman Friday and sked her where I could find the Brief they filed with SCOTUS, last week. She sent me a PDF of the Brief and I read it. The problem is for some reason it won’t let me copy the link so I can share it with you all. This is what she sent me
final_ synder v Does Bio.pdf That is how it is written down it will let me copy and paste every thing but it is 47 pages long. I will tried to figure out how to copy the pdf, but if some one else knows how to do it, please do so so everyone can read it thank you.

Here is the document Bobby mentioned. I got it on

So does anyone have any idea how long SCOTUS has before they have to make a decision on Does v Snyder, regarding .whether SCOTUS will take or deny the case. Just curious on how much longer, because if or should I say when we win, it will have a BIG impact on me since my conviction was in 92, before Michigan even had a registry, and the registry went into effect 94 or 95 while I was still on parole until 96 Thanks

SCOTUS has not decided if they will review the 6th Circuit decision yet. MI filed the writ of certiorari for a SCOTUS review, ACLU filed (the posted) brief in opposition to such a review and instead suggests MI change its SORNA laws to comply with 6th Circuit’s decision. This ACLU brief does not argue the case, this is a brief filed in opposition to MI’s request (petition) for a writ of certiorari.
If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, MI may be required to change its SORNA laws.

I went to check in today, and spoke with the clerk as she was registering me, and I asked her about why we are still doing all this since the stay was denied by Justice Kagan, and she told me that they got something in the mail, and from what she read everything stay’s the same, as normal until SCOTUS, decides on what they are going to do with Snyder, either review or deny it, she also told me that SCOTUS is probably waiting to see what happens with the Temelkoski case in The Michigan Supreme Court first before they decide on what to do with the Snyder case. What was funny is after she finished with me she said see you in June, and I said I hope not I said hopefully all this will be decided by then, she said don’t count on it, before I let I said Chris I believe your forgetting something, and she said what’s that, I said not that I want to throw away money and give this to you, but don’t you need this $50 bucks of mine and she was like oh ya, apparently you remember more then I do, I said no it’s just I have been doing this unconstitutional thing since 1995,and don’t want to screw up now, since this is so close to finally being over for good, at least for me anyway. If she is correct then SCOTUS is waiting to see what happens with the Temelkoski case in the Michigan Supreme Court. Does anyone know when that ruling is suppose to come down.

For those that are interested in either Does v Snyder or Michigan v Temelkoski

I just got an e-mail back from Ms Aukerman regarding this, I asked her if there was any word yet on when we might hear something on either case, and this is what she wrote back to me.

She said: We should here something on Does v Snyder sometime in April, but not sure when we will hear something regarding Temelkoski. That is all that she has told me so far in regards to these two cases, I hope this helps anyone who was wondering about these two cases.