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.”
That’s what it sounds like to me,let’s hope so
@Bobby S.
if you don’t mind my asking, how did the March check in go ?
I was told it was probably going to be my last , that was the first week of March, before the ruling .
Still Confused so I am pre 2011 pre registration,so I haven’t heard anything from the ACLU trying to figure out what if any requirements I would be obligated to,so what if I wanted to buy another vehicle am I required to report it?I hope the ACLU clarify s the recent ruling on our obligations,any opinions would be appreciated,Has anyone called the ACLU regarding the recent ruling and our obligations?thank you
I think in like 25 days when if the State apeals where this case is headed I they try to hold Citizens on the Hit list we start hiring Lawyers for all the time they violated us when told over and over again they are applying Punitive Punishment. *F* The Stae of Michigan !
I went and verified yesterday and the officer behind the desk told me they hadn’t heard about the judgement and when I showed it to him he told me to disregard it. I know it’s the real thing but it seems like the state is up to something. This officer worked at the sheriff’s department and the office is in my county’s jail. That smells fishy to me. I’m pre-2011 BTW.
Bet the state drags this out more and it will go on and on and on sorry I have no faith in the system
I think this is the next step?
Notice to Class, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement
1. Defendants shall provide notice of this Judgment to all registrants and to law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys tasked with the enforcement of SORA within the period of time stated in a Court-approved notice process. Within 28 days
of entry of this Judgment, the parties shall submit for the Court’s approval a joint proposed process for notice and proposed notices for registrants, prosecutors, and law enforcement. If the parties cannot agree, they shall provide to the Court their respective proposed notice process and proposed notices.
2. Within 90 days of the effectiveness of this Judgment, Defendants shall update the Explanation of Duties, MSP Form RI-004 and RI-004A, to conform to this Judgment.
I don’t think the state will do anything until the appointed dates,
more than likely the Michigan state police website is just having problems,
Here’s something new to squabble about!
173
Apr 11, 2025
Main Doc
Stay
Here it comes;
173
Apr 11, 2025
Main Doc
Stay
Att 1
Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits
Att 2
Exhibit A – Comparative Chart (Amended SORA and SORNA)
Att 3
Exhibit B – Willman – ACLU Amicus brief
Here’s a peek under the curtain :
MOTION to Stay re172 Judgment Defendants Motion to Stay Judgment on Counts I, II, And XI Pending Appeal Expedited Consideration Requested and Brief in Support of Defendants Motion to Stay Counts I, II, and XI of Judgment with Certificate of Service by James Grady, Gretchen Whitmer. (Jamison, Eric)
We knew that the state was going to ask for a stay,So I believe that the ACLU will respond with an opposing motion asking the court to deny the States request and asking for an injunction, Hopefully to put a stop to this unconditional punishment
The documents are accessible at court listener now,
And the last paragraph from the state;
§ 20932. Immunity for good faith conduct.
The Federal Government, jurisdictions, political subdivisions of jurisdictions, and their agencies, officers, employees, and agents shall be immune from liability for good faith conduct under this subchapter.
so my question will be is violating the constitution an act of good will?
Can somebody explain this part ;
Defendants counsel sought concurrence before filing the instant motion. There was a conference amongst the attorneys where Defendants’ counsel explained the nature of the motion and the legal basis for the motion, but concurrence was not granted. L.R. 7.1(a)(2).
I don’t know what this part is referring to.
More:
174 Apr 16, 2025 Main Doc Amend/Correct
As Janice said;
step by step,
inch by inch,
brick by brick,
Apr 16, 2025
TEXT-ONLY ORDER re 173 MOTION to Stay: (Plaintiffs’ Response due by 4/21/2025, Defendants’ Reply due by 4/23/2025) Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith.
this next one should have the meat and potatoes of the case laid out on the table,,,,
we shall see.
Here’s the pacer monitor version;
Docket last updated: 12 hours agoWednesday, April 16, 2025174
10 pgs motion Amend/Correct Wed 04/16 1:13 PM
Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct172 Judgment and Enter Amended Final Judgment by All Plaintiffs. (Aukerman, Miriam)
hope this helps.