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.”
Just wanted to let everyone know,that a friend just messaged me and he went to verify and they gave him a phone number cause he asked about coming off the registry he’s pre 94 he called the number and they said he would have to petition the court to be removed but I think the ACLU Should be letting us know if they are taking care of it or if we have to do it ourselves he did mention the court ruling to them and they said it was true,Has anyone heard anything from the ACLU directly
The next step;
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 161, PageID.8819 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 1
JOHN DOES et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
v. Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al.,
Defendants. _________________________________/
ORDER FOLLOWING NOVEMBER 13, 2024 STATUS CONFERENCE
At the status conference held on November 13, 2024, the Court set the following deadlines:
1. The parties must each submit a supplemental brief on Plaintiffs’ vagueness claim, not to exceed 25 pages, by November 27, 2024. The Court will decide whether to order any responses after the supplemental briefs are filed.
2. The parties must submit a supplemental joint statement that outlines all remaining issues from the November 1, 2024 joint statement (Dkt. 159) by December 11, 2024. The parties must also submit an updated proposed final judgement by the same date.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2024 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
@ michigan;
maybe this will help,
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 161, PageID.8819 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 1
JOHN DOES et al., Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
v. Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al.,
Defendants. _________________________________/
ORDER FOLLOWING NOVEMBER 13, 2024 STATUS CONFERENCE
At the status conference held on November 13, 2024, the Court set the following deadlines:
1. The parties must each submit a supplemental brief on Plaintiffs’ vagueness claim, not to exceed 25 pages, by November 27, 2024. The Court will decide whether to order any responses after the supplemental briefs are filed.
2. The parties must submit a supplemental joint statement that outlines all remaining issues from the November 1, 2024 joint statement (Dkt. 159) by December 11, 2024. The parties must also submit an updated proposed final judgement by the same date.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2024 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
Today’s filings;
162
Nov 27, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
it might not be readable until after the holiday, but at least it is filed on time,,,,
Here’s the 2nd one so both parties have filed their briefs on time!
163
Nov 27, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
@Michigan, Well I went in today to check in, hopefully for the last time. I don’t go back until March so hopefully I and many others will finally be removed from this rediculous thing by March. I called before I went in, and of course they don’t have a clerk yet. The guy said he was trained on it but he wasn’t very good at it yet. So I went in anyway since it’s 5 minutes from my place by walking, instead of going out of my way and going to the Brighton Post. It took him about a half hour to finally finish it, in his defense he said he wasn’t great at it yet. I told him he did fine, and this should be the final time he should have to deal with me. He did tell me good luck with everything, and said the entire registry is messed up and a joke. I couldn’t agree more, he was a young guy, I have to be at least 30 years older then this kid LOL.
Ok now we can read the briefs;
163
Nov 27, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
Att 1
Exhibit
162
Nov 27, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
Att 1
Exhibit Ex A – Draft Proposed Judgment Language on Count VIII (Vagueness)
@Michigan, Sorry to bother everyone, and I know this is a long shot. Just wondering if anyone has heard anything new , except for what @DR., has already shared with with everyone. My guess is we probably will not hear anything until sometime after the New Year. Just thought I’d try to keep this in the for front, until we finally get some action and people start getting removed from this rediculous and unconditional registry. Thanks in advance.
Yep I knew this was gonna happen we’re never gonna get off this roller coaster the state never gonna give in and this is been going on for two long I am gonna be dead before we get of this registry that’s even if they let us off it bs state can go fuk themselves I am over it
Can’t other courts deny the appeal. The state has to go by what this court says.
I believe as well as others if the state appeals the aclu needs to push for a civil suit once the state does.i know tim is not going to like it but, if the state does. I am going to strongery express that point to him. I just like others tired of playing these games with these kids.
Tuesday, December 17, 2024165
notice Appear* Tue 12/17 3:03 PM
NOTICE TO APPEAR REMOTELY: Status Conference set for 12/20/2024 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith (CCie)
Wednesday, December 11, 2024164 33 pgs misc Statement – free Wed 12/11 9:26 PM
STATEMENT of Joint by All Plaintiffs (Aukerman, Miriam)Att: 1 47 pgs Exhibit
here’s the order;
166
Dec 20, 2024
Main Doc
Order
Friday, December 20, 2024166
1 pgs ORDER FOLLOWING DECEMBER 20, 2024 STATUS CONFERENCE – Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (CCie)Minute Entry for remote proceedings before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith: Status Conference held on 12/20/2024 – (Court Reporter: None Present, Not on the Record) (CCie)