Civil rights organization says it’s unconstitutional to label people for life without individual review
DETROIT – Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU), on behalf of 10 people who all previously won federal court rulings that Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) is unconstitutional, filed a federal class action lawsuit against state officials over the latest version of the law. It is the fourth federal lawsuit the civil rights organization has filed challenging SORA in the past decade. The federal courts and the Michigan Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that the earlier iteration of SORA was unconstitutional.
Today’s lawsuit, Does v. Whitmer, or Does III, filed in U.S. District Court, argues that the new SORA statute, which went into effect in 2021, is also unconstitutional. Specifically, SORA fails to provide for individual review or an opportunity for removal, forcing tens of thousands of people, including people who didn’t even commit a sex offense, to be branded as sex offenders and subjected to extensive, and in most cases life-long restrictions, without any consideration of their individual circumstances, which is a violation of their due process and equal protection rights. The 193-page complaint also argues that SORA imposes unconstitutional retroactive punishment, including by retroactively extending the registration terms of thousands of people to life.
Michigan has one of the largest registries in the country; there are approximately 45,000 Michigan registrants, and almost 10,000 more who live out of state.
“For nearly a decade, we have been fighting to put an end to an ineffective, bloated and unconstitutional registry that not only fails to protect survivors, but in fact makes families and communities less safe,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “The latest version of SORA is more of the same, and still puts tens of thousands of people on this list automatically without any consideration of their individual circumstances. What we’re asking for is very simple: consider the facts in each case before someone is tarred as a sex offender for life. Dying shouldn’t be the only way a person can get off the registry.”
See the available court documents at the links below:
@everyone,
Well I spoke to SADO today and explained my position and they said 1) I still have to have the court recommend them to help me and regardless of The Michigan Supreme Courts ruling in Betts and Shaver. I am still under the 2021 Amendments and I have to follow that amendment for now until the appeals court rules in Does lll.
I can still ask the 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County to remove me, but I would have to pay an attorney for that and who has that kind of money. I’ve waited this long to be removed I guess I can wait for the Appeals courts decision. Plus now that Michigans Supreme Court has also said Ellis is unconditional, that just gives us more fire power and it seems like the appeals court will have to rule in our favor concerning Does lll. Any thoughts on the subject just curious what you all think. Thanks
So are we waiting on a decision now?
@Bobby S.
thank you for the information!
after the ACLU’s webinar I contacted Oliver Law Group, I was told 10 grand for a sit down ( I thought the first one was free ) and it could go up from there!
So that’s out of the question how does anyone on the registry find a way to afford that!
We been doing a little research AI And it seems like it’s going to take awhile and we’re wondering if the ACLU can do a motion process to lift the stay through the new judges hearing the case we contacted a lawyer over a month ago but he didn’t call us back, don’t seem like he was motivated Thoughts? thank you
Dose anyone know what the order is that was on july 16.
On the sixth curcuit court of appeal docket
I would like to know why it takes so long for a desicion.
This is new;
Greetings from the Does III Litigation Team,
On Tuesday, July 21, the litigation team was in Cincinnati, Ohio, arguing our case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you know, we won some claims and lost some claims in the district court. Both sides appealed. An appeal is where the parties ask a higher court to decide if the lower court’s decision was correct.
The state appealed our wins on claims granting relief to pre-2011 registrants and registrants with non-Michigan convictions. The Sixth Circuit stayed the relief granted by the district court, meaning that relief is not in effect. We appealed on claims around individual review and opportunities for removal, as well as unclear reporting requirements. For more details about what issues are on appeal, see our webpage.
The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel. You can listen to the oral argument here. We cannot predict what the judges will do or how long it will take for them to issue a decision. In Does I, the decision was not issued until about seven months after the argument.
In the meantime, registry cases are continuing to be litigated in the Michigan state courts. We are pleased to share that on July 22, the Michigan Supreme Court decided in People v. Ellis that SORA’s so-called “recapture” provision violates the Michigan Constitution’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. You can read that decision here. The recapture provision involves people who were convicted and completed any prison/probation/parole terms before SORA first came into effect in 1995. Under SORA’s recapture provision, such a person was required to register if they were convicted of a new non-sex offense that is a felony. Ellis said that is unconstitutional. Under that decision, such people cannot be required to register.
If you are required to register under the recapture provision, contact your criminal defense attorney for assistance, or write to the MSP to request removal. Please note: This decision does not require removal of people simply because their offenses are from before 1995. It only applies to people who were (1) not required to register under SORA because they had completed all their supervision requirements before October 1, 1995, and (2) were later added to SORA as the result of a new non-sexual offense.
We wish everyone the best for the remainder of the summer and will continue to keep you updated.
Best,
Does III Litigation Team
ACLU of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave
Detroit, MI 48201
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wi
Why wouldn’t the state be forced to update their registry? Why do we have to pay to make the police follow the law/constitution!
Another new one with more references;
Hello,
We wanted to share an update from the Does III litigation team. Oral argument has now been scheduled for 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. On the day of the argument, you can listen to the argument here: https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/live-arguments.
We do not know how long it will take after the argument for the Court to issue a decision. We will not be able to answer questions until the Court makes a decision.
If you need more information, please review the video recording of our class member webinar. That is now posted on our website. You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEJ_v0PruA . To get to the Spanish and Arabic languages on the video, you can hit the settings icon then select the subtitles option, then make the language selection.
As a reminder, we are not able to answer individual questions about your case.
Best,
Does III Litigation Team
p.s. If you received this email but are not yet signed up for our distribution list, please complete this form: https://secure.ngpvan.com/ZKj-N4ElkEeIfO4CaGisEQ2
ACLU of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave
Detroit, MI 48201
United States
Also rid but information the state has a constitution as well. Here’s what people don’t know, states constitution reflects nearly similarly to the federal constitution. Also state courts don’t have the authority, liberty or power to limit federal rights. So states can only be limited to state rights. However and restricting or minimizing or manipulation of any way in the rights on state constitution, then thus would make it unconstitutional federally, since now it would conflict with federal constitution.
Court listener;
211
Jul 31, 2026
Main Doc
Intervene