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:
Does v. Whitmer (Does III), filed on February 2, 2022, remains active today, September 16, 2025, as a federal class action challenging Michigan’s 2021 Sex Offense Registration Act (SORA) as unconstitutional. Despite prior rulings and legislative amendments, the law continues to impose retroactive punishment, extending registration terms to life for thousands, including individuals who never committed a sex offense. The statute fails to provide individual review or any opportunity for removal, violating due process and equal protection rights by branding tens of thousands without regard for personal circumstances. Expert reports confirm that Michigan’s registry—one of the largest in the country—undermines public safety, sabotages reentry, and imposes lifelong stigma without demonstrable benefit. As of 2025, Michigan has a population of approximately 10.2 million people. Within that population, there are about 45,000 in-state PFR and 10,000 more living out of state who are still subject to SORA. This means roughly 0.54% of Michigan’s total population is listed on the registry. On September 15, 2025, the Sixth Circuit entered a clerk order in Case No. 25-1414, confirming that the appeal remains active, with judgment stayed and class list production delayed, but the constitutional harm remains unresolved. While the 2021 statute was enacted in response to prior court rulings, the amendments were limited, failing to address core constitutional defects such as automatic registration, lack of removal mechanisms, and retroactive extensions. The docket reflects challenges to these provisions, but speculative reforms—including mandatory judicial review panels, time-based removal thresholds, survivor-informed audits, or subclass-specific relief—are not included in the current filings or legislative record.
Constitutional amendments implicated:
First Amendment – Compelled speech through mandatory reporting requirements Fourteenth Amendment – Violations of due process and equal protection Eighth Amendment – Potentially cruel and unusual punishment through lifelong restrictions Ex Post Facto Clause (Article I, Section 10) – Retroactive extension of registration terms
Though not cited in the current docket, Article I, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution—guaranteeing that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process—may offer a parallel foundation for future state-level challenges or coalition-led reform. Its relevance remains theoretical but unresolved.
Disclaimer: This summary is provided for informational and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. All data, projections, and constitutional references are based on publicly available filings, expert reports, and coalition analysis as of September 16, 2025. Interpretations of Michigan law and constitutional harm remain subject to judicial review. The mention of Article I, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution is theoretical and not currently cited in the active docket. Survivors, PFR, and coalition members are encouraged to consult legal counsel before taking action. Formatting, subclass notation, and symbolic timestamping are used for memorial and advocacy purposes only.
Reply to DR Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the information that you have posted on here I’m sure others do as well so sorry your having health issues try to have a good day and best of luck to you
Yes these three briefing after doing some research and looking into. Is the party’s have come to agreement and they have to take it to the judge. And after three briefing judge with make his decision on them. And what ever the judge come to with take affect.
Just in case people were wounding what the stipulation and Order is this is what it is.
Click here to see larger version of attached information page
See the latest available court documents at the link below:
courtlistener docket 62646259
If the state legislature repeatedly continues to snub its collective nose at the Court (by failing to write laws consistent with Court rulings and guidance), then perhaps it’s time for the court to take more definitive and decisive action. Or is the Court a “paper tiger”?
Let me go over my understanding of our constitutional rights and someone correct me on any of it if I’m wrong. 1 Freedom of speech(as applys today) freedom to say, write, text, or print, or express anything I want without censorship or forced application. 3rd amendment right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure. As applys today. I can live peacefully knowing the government is not spying on me via in person or useing my ip address to my internet or listen in on phone calls or intercept communication without first judicial determination and a warrant. Right to privacy also applys to my personal information and it being disseminated to the public letting everyone know where I live, work, and what car I drive, by force instead by my choice of selection. Which also shakes hands with unlawful search and seizure my information, especially since the public has been useing an unlawful database (sora) to search and seize information of someone on it. Since been deemed unconstitutional time and time again. So whole public should now be prosecuted for commuting a crime with the state charged as an accomplice in aiding and abedding. 11th amendment the right to life liberty and property. Simply spelled out, the people have right to a peaceful life, freedom to own property, and the liberty to travel freely on our own accord without needing permission and no restriction.
I do have ask a potential dumb question. Does the ruling stating putting internet identifiers on sora is unconstitutional apply to only pre 2011 or post 2011 as well?
Does anyone know why the ACLU has not filed their brief? Since the court monitor issued the briefing schedule. The ACLU was supposed to have their brief filed by September 17.
2 things to say. 1: wasn’t a ruling put into affect that the determination if someone is placed on sex offense registry was stripped from the state police and left to the judge (or jury) to decide? 2: if statement 1 is true, is it possible that court might be asking for the updated class list, to make a determination of those on the registry as do they belong on the registry or not? So potentially some others even post 2011 might see relief?
The updated list will probably be pre 2011, they don’t want to separate the pre 94’s because then they would have to admit the whole scheme was unconstitutional, and this way they think they can keep part of sora,,,, but brick by brick it will be dismantled,,,,,,
In my opinion,
I want ask, if current ruling states it’s unconstitutional to force people to give internet identifiers via violation of first amendment. It’s being granted to pre 2011, then wouldn’t that still make it unconstitutional to only apply it to post 2011? It’s still violation of first amendment. Or am I just crazy?
I just wondering if anyone plans on bringing there own civil suit over due process.
i went in to verify and was supposed to in sept i thought, today woulda been one day late (Happened once or twice before no trouble arose in 20 years, tier 2 2005) I went to my local small town pd as i have the last 5, going on 6 years. she asked if i had changes, i said no then her and another lady are looking at the screen telling me that dont have to come back til march ’26 (according to the computer) and says “compliant”. I said I know theres changes happening with the sor right now, maybe thats part of it? She reiterated that theres nothing for her to do on her end, the other lady has been there since i first moved here so i think she at least would’ve noticed something wrong. I said “ok, that works for me i guess, have a good day”. First time this has ever happened and just wanted to share cause yall offer some good info on this site from time to time its good to know others are in the boat, sure as hell dont want to be but ya know lol
I have to ask. I know im still on probation but, can they legally have me sign a letter stating I will not participate in any Halloween activities? Is that legal? If I don’t sign it they say it’ll violate my probation. Seems like very same concept of signing I understand the registry. The whole if you sign it we can use it against you in court if you don’t it’s an another offense.
This is what I found that the sixth circuit ruled. I haven’t seen it before and don’t know if you guys have. But if you haven’t hear it is.
Here Bobby S ;
Tuesday, October 14, 2025204 motion For OrderTue 10/14 11:33 AM
MOTION for Order Entry Of Parties Proposed Notice Process Order And For Approval Of Notices To Registrants, Law Enforcement, And Prosecutors by Mary Doe, John Doe A, John Doe B, John Doe C, John Doe D, John Doe E, John Doe G, John Doe H, Mary Roe. (Aukerman, Miriam)Att: 1
Index of Exhibits,Att: 2
Exhibit A – Proposed Notice Process Order,Att: 3
Exhibit A-1 Proposed Registrant Notice,Att: 4
Exhibit A-2 Proposed Prosecutor Explanation,Att: 5
Exhibit A-3 Proposed Law Enforcement Explanation,Att: 6
Exhibit B – Registrant Explanation of Duties
Justice delayed = justice denied. All of you current persons forced to register will be dead before justice is fully implemented…that is what I see from my viewpoint down here in Texas.
Anyone know anything about the registry audits showing problems. Like what that means?
What happened Monday in 6CCA?