SCOTUS asks US Solicitor General to weigh in on Ex Post Facto case

News from the U.S. Supreme Court – the court has NOT decided whether it will review Doe v. Snyder, last summer’s ground-breaking decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review an important ruling (Doe v. Snyder) which was handed down last summer by a federal appeals court, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The request was discussed in a private conference last Friday and today we learned the result – the Supreme Court has made NO decision on the request for review. They did not reject it, they did not grant it. Instead the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for their opinion, in the form of a legal brief. The Solicitor General is the lawyer who represents the federal government – the Trump Administration — in Supreme Court matters. What does this mean? The Supreme Court did not outright reject the request for review but they apparently have some interest in this case and might still decide to grant review in the near future. So stay tuned for further action by the Supreme Court.

What’s at stake: Doe v. Snyder is a big victory and when the 6th Circuit issued its decision it became the first federal appeals court to rule that parts of a sex offense registration law are punishment, and unconstitutional if they’re applied retroactively – see the news headlines, below. Michigan’s sex offense registry law was challenged and it was cut back by the 6th Circuit’s decision. Michigan lost so they’re hoping to undo the damage to their registration law by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit decision.

What about Supreme Court review of this case, good or bad idea? If the Supreme Court rejects the request for review, the 6th Circuit decision stands and is in effect for Michigan and the other states (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) in that federal circuit. If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, anything can happen – the Supreme Court could uphold the 6th Circuit’s decision or change it or even uphold the Michigan registration law. If the Supreme Court grants review, by the time the case is actually heard the currently vacant seat on the court is likely to be filled with a Trump administration nominee. With so much uncertainty, some would prefer the Supreme Court refuse to review the case and just let the 6th Circuit decision alone. The 6th Circuit decision means that a number of people will be freed from the registry but that is up in the air while the Supreme Court decides what to do. Bold and ground-breaking, the 6th Circuit ruling is already influencing other courts. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire


The order from the US Supreme Court in the case of Doe v Snyder, the challenge to the Ex Post Facto application of Sex Offender registry conditions, reads as follows:

“The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.”

I believe it’s fair to say what the Solicitor General’s position will be. It’s difficult to formulate an opinion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing – comments are welcome. From FAC


Commentary from SCOTUSblog:

And in Snyder v. Doe, the justices asked the federal government to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on whether the application of various provisions of the sex-offender-registry laws to individuals who were convicted before the laws were enacted violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on retroactive punishment. There is no deadline for the federal government to file its brief, although it is likely to do so by fall.

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

I noticed this exchange on twitter from a Michigan registrant that is very accurate regarding compliance checks in Michigan.


“Exactly. Ultimate goal=lock em up, make them targets for vigilantes or make their lives so miserable they off themselves. Entrapment much?

I answer the door w/hubby because cops openly lie/deceive about his responsibilities. They hate it when ppl know their stuff.”

@AJ Louisiana “found” the incorrect information from my case on watchdog. They attempted to prosecute me for failure to register. They were so distracted with the “intent to manufacture” charge they were fabricating on me to be too concerned with the “failure to register”. I ended up beating the failure to register while I was incarcerated on the other charge. Then, when I was paroled, it became a “requirement” for my release from Angola. I didn’t have “sex offender” on my RAP sheet & didn’t even want that to b the reason I was kept at Angola. That’s not a good place for any sex offender, or even someone “believed” to be a sex offender. So, I registered.

@ AJ Where my concern & issue is: how can same sex marriages be protected under the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution and not apply to this charge dismissed 18 years ago? How is it not an “ex post facto” violation to alter the dismissal to a conviction? How does Louisiana even have jurisdiction over a Texas case? The charge was from 03/12/91, in Texas. Louisiana Law is clear on defining a registerable offense as: “having been committed on or after June 18, 1992…” I am at a total loss & state of confusion.

@ AJ: How could the clock have been “reset” by my incarceration? I never had the defamatory label “sex offender” on my license until 18 years after the dismissal of the indictment. And it is another state that has labeled me as such. If I never had the “clock” on me to reset, how can it even be added now without it violating “ex post facto”? Muchless the dismissal being altered to a conviction. Texas dismissed the indictment. Louisiana claims “convicted” & has yet to produce the FIRST legal document to support their claim.

I have been hearing a lot of news regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on which cases they will take up in their next session, which would be in the Fall of 2017.

I have not heard anything regarding this case. Does anyone know the status of this?

Hello everyone,

Well I Just looked on the scotusblog, and it was finally made public this is Michigan AG’s supplemental brief to SCOTUS asking to “GRANT REVIEW” of Michigan’s SORNA. Now I read it, but don’t really understand it, so if some one would kindly try to explain it to me, and what they think about the brief I would appreciate it.

Since I am from Michigan this is very important to me since I have now been on this stupid thing for 25 years, my original registration even though Michigan had no registry in 92 when I was convicted, so I went from 25 years to life. Any way here is the brief .

I am seeking an attorney that is willing to attack this “ex post facto” issue. My charge was dismissed on Mach 2, 1999. The accusation was from March 12, 1991. The Texas Laws of deferred adjudication state “A dismissal under this section shall not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed for the conviction of an offense.” As I interpret that, not being a lawyer, I don’t have to register. Texas never required me to. However, Louisiana has forced me to do so on December 23, 2009, more than 10 years after the dismissal. I even had my father go to Texas, because Luoisiana

I am 144 days away from completing my parole for a drug offense. I am being harassed daily, if not hourly, by the CYBER CRIMES DIVISION OF THE STATE POLICE OF LOUISIANA. Trying to entice me to sign up on social media websites. Which would enslave me to DOC for another 10 years. I am tired of being harassed, defamed, & labeled as a convicted sex offender when I have no such conviction. HELP!

Hello everyone,

I was just on the SCOTUS blog, and I came across all the case’s for conference on the 25th, and as we all know does v Snyder is one of them. Now what I did notice and don’t understand, because I am not court savvy nor do I claim to be, but I noticed they have Does v Snyder under Calls for the Views of the Solicitor .
General. Now does that mean it is just under that title for people to find, since the SG already gave his opinion? I also noticed that on the 28th it says orders, with nothing written yet. I was just wondering will SCOTUS actually make there decisions that fast, and put the order out with in 3 days of the conference, or does it take longer then that, I hope I explained that clear enough for people to understand, Does anyone know if it actually works that fast, or is that for other orders in from earlier this year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Any updates on this? Is it waiting on any dates for an update?

Thank you for that information.

I am not familiar with all the lingo, but on the NARSOL website is this case listed as “Won”. Doe v DPSCS, 430 Md. 535, 62 A.3d 123 (Md. 2013) (Full challenge of retroactivity and enhanced requirements). Maybe, this is not really related, but in skimming through it, does it not show that the State had to remove the registrant since he was not required to register at the time he took a plea deal? I am sure I am missing the fine print. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can take a glimpse and crush my hope?