MI: ACLU Sues State Officials for the Fourth Time over Unconstitutional Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act

Does anyone know why there is nothing on Pacer Monitor yet? Has anyone heard anything?

Here’s something new;

Oct 22, 2024
Text-Only Order

have to wait for more updates?

you asked for my thoughts? Ok…

ACLU of Michigan,
blocking the road to tyranny,
please donate, but nothing about sora! I want to know what is going on with our 30+ years of litigation and be kept updated on Does case first and foremost, I want to know which politicians support sora reform and which ones don’t mostly the elephants don’t but I would like to see the list that signed on to Michigan sora 2023,,,,

“The court ruled against the plaintiffs on three claims involving individualized review, opportunities to petition for removal, and reporting requirements. The court also found that one claim was moot, and another might require additional briefing” What did the judge rule against in regard to reporting requirements? What was found moot? and what might need additional briefing? Thanks in advance.

Lastly is it not considered compelled speech to be forced to give your information on the registry against your will such as your name, car, ip address, and alias. Basically your whole life then exposed to the whole country. Especially tier 1 are supposed be in a private data base and I found myself in less than 5 minutes. Also is it not gouging be forced pay money to stay on the registry that you don’t want be on? Maybe might be considered for further lawsuits.

It would be good, for those of us not in Michigan who kind of threw up our hands several years ago in frustration with the lack of progress in this case, to get an overview of the chronology and the decisions and the state’s apparent disregard for those decisions and the end-runs it’s since been doing. I had thought that Whitmer was originally in support of the ACLU’s efforts but now seems to have taken the politically expedient route of turning her back on us. Also, wasn’t there a court decision that people convicted before a certain date should, as a class, be relieved of the registry and the state simply flouted that ruling?

@Michiganders, So isn’t today the deadline for the deadline extension submission. I hope I worded that correctly, if I remember correctly today was the deadline for the extension November 1st. not that it will matter they will probably be given another extension to keep dragging this on and on. I honestly don’t see how the state can wiggle themselves out of this one , this should be checkmate game over. Just wondering if anyone has heard anything or checked PACER yet. I wish I could afford PACER. Any news would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Here print what you want,
for us old timers,,,,

1. Count II – Retroactive Extension
In Count II, Plaintiffs alleged that retroactively requiring a person to register for life violates both the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the U.S. Consti- tution and sought to bar Defendants from enforcing SORA for a term longer than that in effect at the time of the registrant’s offense. Am. Compl., ECF No. 108, PageID.2982. The subclass was defined as “members of the primary class who were retroactively required to register for life as a result of amendments to SORA.” ECF No. 35, PageID.1117. Plaintiffs intentionally defined the subclass to include anyone whose term was retroactively extended. This is because SORA was also amended in 1999 to retroactively extend registration terms for pre-1999 registrants. Compare P.A. 295, sec. 5(3)-(4) (1995), with P.A. 85, sec. 5(6)-(7) (1999). Similarly on Count VI, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Defendants from requiring registration for a term
4

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 159, PageID.8781 Filed 11/01/24 Page 5 of 16
longer than that in effect at the time of a registrant’s plea. Am. Compl., ECF No. 108, PageID.2983. Plaintiffs did not limit either of the counts or the subclass definition to retroactive extension of registration terms that occurred only in 2011.
Plaintiffs believe that the Count II relief should enjoin registration for longer than the term in effect at the time of the offense.1 Defendants believe the Court should reinstate the registration terms in effect in 2010, before the 2011 amendments.
Defendants’ interpretation runs counter to this Court’s opinion and would require much more litigation before a final judgment could enter. The Court decided it did not need to reach the plea claim because it “has now determined that SORA 2021 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, which ruling will prohibit retroactive enforcement of amendments to SORA,” meaning that “no plea agreements will be retroactively modified.” Op., ECF No. 158, PageID.8731-8732. The Court also found it unnecessary to decide Plaintiffs’ due process arguments on Count II. Id., PageID.8679, n.16. If Defendants’ proposed relief were correct, both issues would need to be litigated because some registrants whose terms were extended before 2011, or who pled guilty, would be excluded from relief. For example, a person who
1 For registrants whose offense predated the creation of SORA, Plaintiffs can agree to look to the term in effect on October 1, 1995, when SORA was initially adopted. As a practical matter, it has been more than 25 years since their offenses were committed and 25 years was the standard registration term when SORA was first adopted (except for those who reoffended). P.A. 295, sec. 5(3)-(4) (1995).
 5

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 159, PageID.8782 Filed 11/01/24 Page 6 of 16
pled in 1998 to an offense with 25-year registration and who was retroactively extended to life in 1999, would not get Count II ex post facto relief under Defendants’ proposal, but would still have a Count II due process claim and a Count VI plea claim.
Moreover, the appropriate relief under the Ex Post Facto Clause is to restore the original registration terms. The ex post facto doctrine is grounded in the under- standing that law may not “inflict[] a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 (1990) (emphasis altered). See also Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 30 (1981) (legislature may not increase punishment “beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated”). Therefore, the proper remedy is “to apply, if possible, the law in place when [the] crime occurred.” Id. at 36, n.22. Other courts, after finding that retroactive extension of registration terms violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, have restored the registrant’s original registration term.2
Defendants’ contrary argument is not grounded in caselaw, but solely in foot- note 31 of the Court’s opinion. Plaintiffs’ reading of that footnote is that the Court was simply unaware that some registrants’ terms were extended in 1999. The more telling statement in the Court’s opinion is that the plea claim is moot, which it will
2 See, e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 980 N.E.2d 312, 321 (Ind. 2013); Quispe Del Pino v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 112 A.3d 522, 523, 533 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015); State v. Letalien, 985 A.2d 4, 26 (Me. 2009).
 6

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 159, PageID.8783 Filed 11/01/24 Page 7 of 16
not be if registrants’ terms do not go back to the original registration term.
Finally, while Defendants will need some time to remove all members of the retroactive extension of registration subclass who have completed their registration terms, there is no reason Defendants cannot immediately remove the three named Plaintiffs who have completed their original registration terms. They are daily experiencing harm. Doe E, for example, has been unemployed for months because
of the registry