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:
Went in to register at the Oak Park state police post today. Whole process was probably about 1 minute in total. Didn’t ask me to sign this time. Just said “Good to go”
After this recent ruling Shaver Betts Michigan supreme Court It will be interesting to hear the oral arguments of the United States court of appeals sixth circuit schedule for July 21st 2026 @9AM Hopefully we will know more of what’s going on before then We will be listening to the arguments at that time
So the courts say this is unconditional Many registrants have difficulties in obtaining housing jobs and much more Can’t really protest the system without becoming a target registrants and possibly families being assaulted and yet they expect us to stay on the registry or come up with money or more time waiting for the courts process again While at the same time making new unconditional laws Thoughts Opinions
Don’t know if anyone knew about this but found this from Google searches.
“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.”
Hmm…that sentence is a little confusing. Are they saying that Michiganers have to register after they move out of state? Because I thought only Wisconsin & NY has that law. My guess is that Michigan only keeps people on their registry once they leave the state…..kind of like the Floriduh thing where people stay on their registry, but they don’t have to do anything afterwards
How does MI registry laws apply to a Jan 1995 offense date. If an out of stater moves to Michigan.
if you spend a long time in jail, then put on probation, made pay restitution, and put on the registry, isn’t that being punished multiple times. Which is violation of double jeopardy?
I was just thinking I’ve been on the registry 30 years of America’s 250 yrs.I think get some beer and celebrate it this year.lol
I hate that people can just plaster our faces all over Facebook and we can’t do anything about it. I’m just trying to live a quiet life with my family and people have to do this crap because they are bored at want to stir stuff up. I really hope something changes soon.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Oral Arguments calendar now has Does vs. Whitmer / Does vs. Michigan State Police on the docket for Tuesday, July 21st, and they’re the first case (maybe starting around 9:00 AM?). [Link to schedule] I assume that for most of us the only way we’ll hear about how it went is via the ACLU contact that some of you know? I also assume that we really won’t know much at all until they publish their ruling, which will likely be months later? Still, it’s nice to see something concrete out there that this is finally moving along.
IF ex post facto rights ultimately win-out in Michigan, what about situations where people were simply re-classified by state legislatures, into “higher” and more punitive tiers 20 to 30 years after the fact?
In CA everyone is considered “lifetime” no matter if classified as a no-post, (commonly understood as tier 1), or Tier 3, so our dilemma is a bit different than those registrants in Michigan. Our lifetime requirement was never changed, only our tier classifications.
I hope that all ex post facto changes will be considered unconstitutional!
@Everyone, well I’m not sure if anyone is aware of this, but I just checked the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Calendar, and it looks like they have replaced 2 of the 3 judges for our oral arguments on the 21st.
Did anyone else see this, I wonder how this will effect our chances of a win or a loss for us. A.I still claims it will be a 2-1 decision in our favor. Just thought I’d throw that out there , anyone else have any thoughts.
This one isn’t as controversial;
John B. Nalbandian serves as a United States Circuit Judge from Kentucky on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was nominated and confirmed to that position in 2018. Prior to that, Judge Nalbandian was a partner in the litigation practice group of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP in Cincinnati, where he served as the firm’s lead appellate lawyer and also practiced complex litigation in state and federal courts. Judge Nalbandian was board certified by the Ohio State Bar Association as a specialist in appellate law. Prior to joining Taft, Judge Nalbandian practiced for five years in the appellate section of Jones Day in Washington, DC. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Nalbandian clerked for the Honorable Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Houston. While in private practice, he also served as a board member of the State Justice Institute, a nonprofit organization established by the federal government to improve the administration of justice in state courts. He served as President of the Cincinnati Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. He has also been involved in his community as a board member of the Greater Cincinnati Minority Counsel Program, and as a board member of the Asian Pacific Bar Association of Southwest Ohio. Judge Nalbandian earned his B.S., magna cum laude, from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and served as managing editor of the Virginia Law Review.
maybe the sensible one? Who knows it is on the internet
Karen Nelson MooreU.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitcircuitAppointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic)29 signed orders
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
POSITION
circuit
APPOINTED BY
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
COMMISSIONED
1995-03-24
ABA RATING
Qualified
EDUCATION
Radcliffe College (A.B., 1970, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude); Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1973)
SIGNED ORDERS READ
29
LAST UPDATED
2026-07-04
MOTION OUTCOMES
AppealN = 24
counts only
Granted
6
Granted in part
4
Denied
13
Moot / procedural
1
Habeas appealN = 2
counts only
Granted
1
Denied
1
Petition for reviewN = 2
counts only
Granted in part
1
Denied
1
Counted from classified signed orders. A “1 of 1” is one ruling, not a tendency.
ABOUT THIS DATAA free Ezel research resource. This profile is built from public records: the judge’s own signed orders, public docket records, and published biographies. It is not legal advice and is not affiliated with the court.
Signed rulingsA grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Renee Fazica v. Zachary Jordan et al.
18-1457 · 2019-06-10
Appeal (appellant)
Denied
“Because a reasonable jury could find, based on the record evidence, that each Defendant officer either committed or observed and failed to stop the allegedly unconstitutional acts, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of summary judgment.”
Read the order ↗
Tyson O’Neal v. Erick Balcarcel, Warden
18-2201 · 2019-08-07
Habeas appeal (appellant)
Denied
“we affirm the district court’s conditional grant of O’Neal’s application for a writ of habeas corpus providing that unless a new trial is scheduled within 120 days, O’Neal must be unconditionally released.”
Read the order ↗
Andre Williams v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
792 F.3d 606 · 2015-07-07
Habeas appeal (appellant)
Granted
“the state court’s application of law with regard to whether Williams is intellectually disabled under Atkins was contrary to clearly established Federal law. Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND so that the district court may grant a CONDITIONAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS prohibiting Williams’s execution unless the State reassesses Williams’s Atkins petition consistent with this opinion.”
Read the order ↗
Smith v. Jefferson County School Board of Commissioners
549 F.3d 641 · 2008-11-24
Appeal (appellant)
Granted in part
“We hold that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Board violated the Establishment Clause. In addition, we hold that the Board did not violate the teachers’ procedural and substantive due-process rights, and that the individual Board members are entitled to legislative immunity. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board”
Read the order ↗
United States v. Edgardo Esteras (dissent from denial of rehearing en banc)
95 F.4th 454 · 2024-03-07
A notable separate writing (not a panel disposition, so it is excluded from the appellate-disposition counts and the per-ruling outcome coding). Moore (joined by Stranch) dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, adhering to her earlier dissent (United States v. Esteras, 88 F.4th 1170, 1171-76 (2023) (Moore, J., dissenting)). Grounding quote: ‘KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc. … I would grant the current petition for rehearing because United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2007), and the amended panel order in this case contravene the statutory text, disregard Supreme Court precedent, and place the Sixth Circuit at the extreme of a circuit split, allowing our district courts expressly to punish defendants for violations of supervised release.’ The statutory-text question Moore pressed — that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) omits the § 3553(a)(2)(A) retribution factor and so bars punishing supervised-release violators — reached the Supreme Court, decided as Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025). It illustrates Moore’s textualist method and influence and captures reasoning, not an outcome attributable to her as a panel author.
Read the order ↗
David Ermold v. Kim Davis
16-6533 · 2017-05-02
Appeal (appellant)
Granted
“Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Read the order ↗
Victoria Jackson v. Ford Motor Company
16-5488 · 2016-11-29
Appeal (appellant)
Granted
“For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and REMAND the case for further proceedings.”
Read the order ↗
Dawn Hughey v. Anthony Easlick
20-1804 · 2021-06-28
Appeal (appellant)
Granted
“Easlick is not entitled to summary judgment because Hughey has created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Easlick violated her clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force. We thus REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.”
Read the order ↗
Walter Himmelreich v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
19-4146 · 2021-07-22
Appeal (appellant)
Moot / procedural
“We DISMISS Fitzgerald’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because her appeal concerns neither a final order nor a non-final order entitled to review under the collateral order doctrine.”
Read the order ↗
United States v. Ian Owens
20-2139 · 2021-05-06
Appeal (appellant)
Granted
“For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for reconsideration consistent with this opinion of Owens’s motion for compassionate release.”
Read the order ↗
Donald Middlebrooks v. Wayne Carpenter
14-6061 · 2016-12-19
Appeal (appellant)
Denied
“For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Middlebrooks’s habeas petition.”
Read the order ↗
Terry King v. Bruce Westbrooks
13-6387 · 2017-02-09
Appeal (appellant)
Denied
“For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
Read the order ↗
Put Judge Moore’s record to workEzel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Moore actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Draft a motion tuned to how Judge Moore rules Ask Ezel about Judge Moore
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Moore’s own signed orders and cites them.
Ezel
I’m not sure what the outcome will look like?
Here’s an unorthodox question. If you patent your name (say for business or process) wouldn’t then the registry each time someone looks up your name be obligated to pay you money?
Here’s another thing I want to bring up. You can pay the 550 all at once or 50 a year or however it’s spelled out for your registry term. Isn’t that like paying restitution to the court, except to the state instead? Serves entirely the same purpose. 1 your ordered to pay it, 2 if you refuse to pay, your now not in compliance and are kidnapped(arrested) and charged with another felony. Which is the exact same thing as paying restitution to the court. 1 your ordered to pay it, 2 if you don’t you get arrested and charged with another crime and then forced pay it anyways.
where I am confused at is regardless what you call it “fee” is still restitution that the state profits off of. Same with restitution to the court, so isn’t the fee considered a crime now that restitution is considered criminal punishment?
I had a friend go and register. He was supposed to be completed but, the State police recalculated his time and told him it was from the date of his release and not date of conviction. Now he has 10 more years unless the Court agrees with us as he is part of the Ex post Facto Group.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t the states have their own constitution as well that reflects similarly to the federal constitution? If so, then the state may try limit your rights for punishment for “crime you committed”. However they can only do that on a state level if your case went to circuit court, and was picked up by the state. However their decisions can’t also conflict with federal constitution, and the state shouldn’t have authority to limit your federal constitutional rights, because that be overreach of power.
@ Any one who listened to the Oral Arguments this Morning.
Did anyone understand the oral arguments, because it seemed like it was all over the place and the judges kept interrupting.
Did anyone get any inkling on which way the judges were leaning. Where they leaning in our favor or the States favor or you couldn’t tell with all the interruptions. In my case and many others I guess I will be Petitioning the Court in Oakland County for removal under Betts and Shaver since I’m a pre 2021 registrant or actually pre 95 registrant.
I don’t see the point in waiting for the Appeals courts decision when The Michigan Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on how this morning went, and should we just petition for removal under Betts and Shaver.
Here it is;
Tuesday25-1414 John Doe A v Gretchen Whitmer et alPlaySave25-1415 John Does v Michigan State Police et al
We listened to it very carefully a couple times and it seems like both sides we’re getting interrupted I think the plaintiffs side was able to get the important points across plus the judge was bringing up positive recent rulings We are hoping for the best we’ll see what happens What’s your thoughts??
I thought the state was still beating the dead horse, and the ACLU made the court aware of all the evidence already proven in court, and the courts interruptions were a ploy to fluster the litigants, I think the court is just trying to make it seem like a tough decision, but we will prevail,,,,
just my thoughts.
Just listened to the oral arguments. I was very impressed by the “seizure” issue: one can let a driver’s license expire and not get dragged-off to jail if not renewed by a certain date.
So simple and powerful. And if observed, the whole registry would collapse.
It was good to hear mention of declining recidivism/re-offense rates over time.
I was very happy to hear mention of those who took plea bargains decades ago. I was one of those people whose main concern was registry classification. I cared more about classification than even incarceration and felony conviction. (My personal info and picture were not included on the CD ROM.)
And my goodness, CA sure moved the goal posts 23 years later! All the way to Tier 3.
Federal Draft
Written by Quiet Too Long
07/22/2026
When the judge opened the door to the question of constitutionality, yet no party raised the punitive‑effects analysis, the DA attempted to justify the registry by invoking the federal military draft — a compulsory federal duty that has no doctrinal connection to a state‑level civil regulatory scheme. Because the DA introduced a federal obligation into a civil proceeding without challenge, the proper response would have been to redirect the court to the foundational constitutional inquiries the judge had implicitly raised: Your Honor, since you asked, then the only answer is a question, if you don’t mind. Is this system civil or criminal? Are the states united or sovereign? Is the scheme state or federal? These are the real questions that determine whether the registry, as applied, remains within constitutional bounds, and they directly expose the mismatch between the DA’s federal‑duty analogy and the civil framework the court was relying on.