A U.S. district court judge is giving Michigan lawmakers 90 days to change the state’s sex offender registry law, almost three years after it was first ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court.
U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland issued an order that the law must be changed on Thursday.
The ruling stems from an August 2016 decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati which found that Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Act was unconstitutional. Full Article
Judgement has been entered on 5/23/19 in the case. I think this is some good news but not entirely sure. Ill paste part of it below, this is pulled from pacer:
By stipulation of the parties, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court enters a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and consistent with Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 55 (2017), that the current Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), M.C.L. § 28.721 et seq. is punishment and that the ex post facto application of the 2006 and 2011 amendments is unconstitutional;
2. The Court defers for 90 days the question of whether this declaratory judgment should apply to the following class members:
a. Paul J. Betts and David Allen Snyder, whose criminal appeals are currently pending before the Michigan Supreme Court;
b. Members of the pre-2011 subclasses who have a pending direct appeal in a criminal case where a Michigan state court, prior to August 25, 2016, issued a decision involving the question of whether SORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions; and
c. Members of the pre-2011 subclasses who have an open civil case in either Michigan state court or federal court that includes a claim that SORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan or U.S. Constitutions.
3. In order to avoid interfering with the Michigan legislature’s efforts to address the Does I decisions and their findings of constitutional deficiencies with SORA, the Court defers a ruling on any injunctive relief for 90 days. The Court also specifically defers ruling on:
a. Whether the 2011 amendments can be severed from SORA, and whether, if the 2011 amendments cannot be severed, the statute is null and void as applied to people who are subject to registration based on offenses committed before April 12, 2011; and
b. Whether there are issues in this case that should be certified to the Michigan Supreme Court for decision in the first instance.
4. In the event that the legislature has not revised the statute within 90 days of this order, the parties shall submit a joint status report and the Court will set a briefing schedule to decide the questions of (a) whether this declaratory judgment and any subsequent injunctive relief shall apply to the class members listed in ¶ 2; (b) severability, and whether SORA can apply at all to pre-2011 registrants; (c) what remedies shall be ordered in this case; and (d) any other issues raised by the parties at that time. In their joint status report, the parties shall address whether there are issues of state law that should be certified to the Michigan Supreme Court, or whether this Court should decide those issues.
Dated: May 23, 2019
Approved by:
s/ Miriam Aukerman (P63165)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 616.301.0930 maukerman@aclumich.org
s/ Paul D. Reingold (P27594)
Co-Attorney for Plaintiffs 801 Monroe St.
363 Legal Research Bldg Ann Arbor, MI 48109 734.763.4319 mclp@umich.edu
SO ORDERED.
s/Robert H. Cleland Hon. Robert H. Cleland U.S. District Judge
Thanks @Gary for posting that decision judgement.
I hope this gets to the Tenth Circuit in Denver since it appears to me this is another court that agrees with 6th CCoA making it another court to add to the list of those who feels it is unconstitutional. If I am off on that, then please advise.
Seems a desperate attempt to ” save” the root of the regime, by limiting the scope of the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty to that increased in 06, 09, 2011 Acts. If we examine the true underlying INTENT of retribution we can acknowledge the regime was far more about the machine database to impose affirmative restraint.
So, bottom line here.
“Under Michigan’s law:
Offenders have been prohibited from living, working or even standing within 1,000 feet of a school.
They must immediately register email address or vehicles, plus report to the police as often as four times a year.
The rules currently apply to all offenders on the registry — even if they’ve gone decades without committing and crimes. ”
All that waiting, negotiating, and capitulating to the legislature did crap except to prolong the suffering of the individuals that were entitled to immediate relief, as well as losing the chance to really stick it to these politicians and show them some hurt with personal monetary lawsuits for deprivation of rights under color of law, it still ends up taking the judge to order compliance with the original order. Now the legislature is going to sever the ordered parts and those people are going to get relief from those amendments that have been delayed for what, years I believe. And the ACLU will have to file new suits to challenge the rest of the law which is going to be even harder since the legislature is going to try and work it so as the next suit will be upheld. Big chance for change avoided really. We will see I guess as the issue by the Michigan AG, and the court, was also the no individualized assessments.
So what changes specifically are we looking at here? Or at least a guess.
Shortened registration terms?
Case by case risk factors?
School zone restrictions shortened/eliminated?
Someone please tell me the Judge added an “or else” to his ruling!
As in, “You, State lawmakers, have until August __, 2019 to correct the Registry laws and bring them into full compliance with both the State and the Federal Constitutions, OR ELSE all Registry statutes and Registry-affiliated rules, regulations, and requirements will be immediately null and void as of 12:01 a.m., xxday, August ___, 2019.”
As we all know too well, if there is no “OR ELSE” for politicians, they will hem and haw and get nothing done.
Yeah David or Josh, the legislature is most likely going to force the court through the last step and the court is now going to have to sever the statute themselves in a court order. That is exactly what is going to happen as you guys have stated, it is the court that is going to do it, out of the legislature’s hands as far as they are concerned. All this concerns is the 2006 amendments, which is very limited to exactly what I stated above. minus assessments. And like I stated, the ACLU is going to have to file again on the individual assessments as that seems to be what is being kicked down the road. The Michigan AG included the assessment and onerous in-person reporting requirements in her brief, but it appears these are the cans.
So, now someone tell me how applying the Static 99R to people in California, even when they’ve been years offense-free, to determine “tiers,” is Constitutional?
So it sounds like this is all for not, just more kicking of the can down the street. It’s probably going to be a few more years till this gets resolved if ever, I will be 50 on the 2nd of June, and I have been doing this stupid crap since I was 23 and by the looks and sounds of things I will be doing this crap until I’m dead. I know one thing I will be conducting Tim P. or Ms.Aukerman this coming up week to find out if this is going to get fixed by August 21st, or is it going to drag on for a few more years. It sounds good on paper, but I am not holding my breath.
I would like to hear Janice’s take on what the possibilities and potential outcomes could be.
Either way,,,,It’s a fight that we all have a dog in!
@Janice, I am from Michigan and a pre-sorna registrant that will have 27 years in on the registry June 19th two years longer then I should of been, so I would really like to hear your thoughts on Judge Clelands decision that our Michigan Legislators, have 90 days to revise the registry or else.
Does this mean no agreement has been reached between the legislators and ACLU. Few days ago someone mentioned they have a good draft that will change the Michigan sex offender completely. I am confused, can someone please let’s know what’s going on over here.
Hello, ok I ran a cross this from the WAR website, some one asked them a question ,and this was their response The MI ACLU won the case at the MI Supreme Court level. SCOTUS didn’t grant cert (agree to hear the case) so it stook in the state of MI. They took no action to comply. ACLU sued the state of MI. Attorney Journal of MI wrote damning amicus briefs against the registry. now the state has been given an undisuputable directive. So my question is what exactly is a undisputable directive?
@AJ. Thanks, for the explaining it in detail to me, so it sounds like the end is finally here for me and many others on this stupid registry. Again, thanks for the explanation very much appreciated.
And Still Nothing from Counsel,,Alot of speculation by Fellows,, Nuthin from Councel,,,Mates!,,Just Sayin!
I received a email from Citizens for Justice regarding MI SOR. Ask to be added to the email update list.
We were expecting this, but now it has happened. Federal District Court Judge Cleland has ordered the state legislature to revise the SORA, and has given a 90 day deadline to get this done. He says that 90 days is reasonable “given that the Does I decision has been final since October 2017”. You can see the actual order by following this link https://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/055_stip_order_for_decl_judgment_for_90_day_deferral.pdf
To summarize my understanding of the order, If the state does not change the law within 90 days, Cleland has ordered that the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA cannot be applied ex post facto to the whole class of people required to register. This is the minimum change that he will make to the law, and this in itself will be huge, but, this isn’t the end of his order. He also says that he might find that the 2011 amendments to SORA are not severable from the rest of the SORA, and therefore that the SORA is null and void for anyone whose offense occurred before April 12, 2011. He also reminds us that he decided earlier that a number of registration requirements (residency and work exclusion zones, registration of internet ids and vehicles, etc.) are unconstitutional, and that he might order that these cannot be enforced.
Big news indeed! We can be sure now that big changes to the Michigan SORA will occur before the end of the year. This order is something we should detail in future meetings with legislators, …
John
Michigan Citizens for Justice
When I was sentenced, I was only required to register for 25 yrs. My 25 yrs is up next year in June. Is this ruling going help me? Or am I going to have to file a petition in my local court citing both this and the prior ruling in my petition? Or will all of this allow me to come off the registry next year? I know this affects so many more than just myself. However, right now I just want to know how it will affect me directly.
I’m on the SOR in Wisconsin. It was for 15 years. 2021 was the year of my release from it. Today, I got a certified letter telling me it’s been extended to life. I have not re-offended and have obeyed the law. I signed a legal binding agreement with the state which they changed without due process. I’m incredibly stressed. It’s the punishment which never ends. I’m not allowed to become a functional member of society.
I’m curious how this will affect people from other states who now live in Michigan, to include people convicted federally (federal court or military). After all, they’re ordered to abide by whatever laws the state is enforcing. If one was convicted prior to the year 2000, would it help them, or would the state say they still must follow the Federal governments SORNA?
Here is a quick read if anyone is interested. it was from an email I received from Michigan Supreme Court News. http://legalnews.com/detroit/1475056/
Hello everyone,
I got a very short email from Ms Aukerman just now pertaining to the progress of revising Michigan’s sorna
So here it is folks: We met today. It is too early to know what will happen.
Hello Everyone,
I got this in my email today, about decisions in Betts and Snyder, and me not being the brightest light bulb in the box, can some one please explain what it means exactly please. I read them twice and I am still confused. Their decisions by The Michigan Supreme Court are at the bottom. Thanks in advance.
*** the link you provided goes to your email (mail.yahoo.com). Please past the email text here. Moderator***
Here is the order for MI Vs. Betts. The application was granted.
6-20-19:
“On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq., taken as a whole, amount to “punishment” for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1, § 10; see People v Earl, 495 Mich 33 (2014), see also Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696, 703-706 (CA 6, 2016), cert den sub nom Snyder v John Does #1-5, 138 S Ct 55 (Oct 2, 2017); (2) if SORA, as a whole, constitutes punishment, whether it became punitive only upon the enactment of a certain provision or group of provisions added after the initial version of SORA was enacted; (3) if SORA only became punitive after a particular enactment, whether a resulting ex post facto violation would be remedied by applying the version of SORA in effect before it transformed into a punishment or whether a different remedy applies, see Weaver v Graham, 450 US 24, 36 n 22 (1981) (“the proper relief . . . is to remand to permit the state court to apply, if possible, the law in place when his crime occurred.”); (4) if one or more discrete provisions of SORA, or groups of provisions, are found to be ex post facto punishments, whether the remaining provisions can be given effect retroactively without applying the ex post facto provisions, see MCL 8.5; (5) what consequences would arise if the remaining provisions could not be given retroactive effect; and (6) whether the answers to these questions require the reversal of the defendant’s conviction pursuant to MCL 28.729 for failure to register under SORA.”
In other news, with Gundy being upheld by the US Supreme Court today, I’m not sure if that decision will hurt Michigan registrants, since the Supreme Court Justices agreed that the US Attorney General has the authority to apply the Federal Sex Offender law retroactively.
Hi , I too was wondering if someone has any idea what was happening on the Michigan Supreme Court web site with the Betts n Snyder cases , it looks as if they struck something down and also granted something else yesterday ???? It said under the Snyder case it was waiting on the out come of the Betts case ???? Not sure what this may mean…Hoping someone maybe able to Help?? Ty.
Hi, Everyone
I was just wondering if anybody received this in their e-mail like I did, especially those people that live in Michigan like I do, thanks in advance.
Hi Bobby,
The Women Against Registry eSymposium Educational Series Proudly Presents:
Shelli Weisberg
Legislative Director for the Michigan ACLU
Presentation Topic:
The Status and Potential Impact
of the Does v. Snyder Case
Call-In: 712-770-5505
Access Code: 859950#
Or listen on your computer:
https://join.freeconferencecall.com/esymposium
Monday, July 8, 2019
9:00 Eastern / 8:00 Central / 7:00 Mountain / 6:00 Pacific
Make plans to dial in from the comfort of your home
Shelli Weisberg started as a lobbyist at the Michigan ACLU in 2003; she is now their Legislative Director. On July 8th, she will discuss the background, current status, and legal implications of the landmark Does v. Snyder case, This case drew attention when SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal by the state, solidifying a win in the appellate court. It drew further scrutiny when Michigan refused to act on this decision. Upcoming rulings and actions in this case could impact the landscape of sex offense litigation and legislation for years to come.
This looks like another great presentation.
WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US
Directors, Women Against Registry
Fighting the Destruction of Families
800-311-3764
https://womenagainstregistry.org
Facebook: Women Against Registry
Follow us on Twitter: @WomenAgainstReg
LinkedIn group Families of Registrants