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.”
Today’s update;
153
Jul 30, 2024
Main Doc
Order
Pacer version; 153
minutes~Util – Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings Order Tue 07/30 12:01 PM
ORDER for Supplemental Briefs. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (MNee)
court Listener is working;
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 153, PageID.8637 Filed 07/30/24 Page 1 of 1
JOHN DOES et al., Plaintiffs,
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al.,
Defendants. _________________________________/
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
v. Case No. 22-cv-10209
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs, on or before August 6, 2024, on the applicability of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lymon, No. 164685 (Mich. July 29, 2024) to the pending motions for summary judgment. The briefs may not exceed five pages, exclusive of attachments.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2024 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
In a hypothetical scenario say we get everything we ask for in this lawsuit. Is it possible those whom had a sex crime, also had no victim(according to the court) had simple possession and upcharge of computer to commit a crime., is tier 1 on the registry and completed SOT and deemed a low risk. Could those people come off the registry?
Another question. Is there an arguement or fight that can be made for those that have mental disabilities such as: depression, anxiety,ptsd from being abused growing up? Particularly this argument be made about probation requiring me do SOT and mental therapy. Probation officer wants to keep me at a facility i feel has been lying, decieving the probation officer, insulting me (telling me im lazy since i dont want let him send me to Detroit). They said they had plenty resources at their exposal but soon as i said no to detroit they provide nothing. They also told me theres nothing out in wayne county metro area for me, but managed on my own (with some help from my mother) to find a place in metro area, and on my own found a job. This mental facility is called Hegira. Look up reviews on them see they are terrible facility. This is just part of the story but wanted get the gist across. My probation wants violate me for going to different facility I believe can,and will help me with my mental problems from my past.
Today’s update;
154
Aug 6, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental
The rest of the paperwork;
156
Aug 6, 2024
Main Doc
Notice – Other
155
Aug 6, 2024
Main Doc
Supplemental Brief
Sorry if i ask some kinda sorta off topic questions but does relate to my sex offense. So as everyone here knows I am on probation for 5 years. I was under the impression that after the 2016 lawsuit the 1000 feet restriction of student safety zone was lifted. If that was the case and was determined be unconstitutional, can probation enforce that on probation conditions? I am thinking no because if supreme court deemed it unconstitutional doesnt mean you can apply it a different way without a court ruling and make it legal.
I just hope ACLU cracks down too on the disability of the registry for individuals on it, regardless of the crime. Now not trying seperate everyones case but ima speak for myself when i say I think they should be somewhat more lenient towards those whom according to their conviction had no victim. Plus think just possession of cp shouldnt be treated as harsh as someone who actually raped someone. They are just pictures and images, where as person who was raped was physically hurt and/or killed in the process.
Hello Everyone, I was just wondering if anyone else got a email from Tim@ the ACLU with an update of what is going on with the case. I tried sharing it a couple of times, but it’s either to long of an email , or there is another reason why they didn’t share it. I did try to share it though, for those who didn’t get the email.
Wait, what,,,,;
157
Aug 14, 2024
Main Doc
Stipulation and Order AND ~Util – Add and Terminate Attorneys
oh, utilitarian
Maybe this will help;
STIPULATED ORDER ALLOWING WITHDRAWL OF DAYJA S. TILLMAN
Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate that Dayja S. Tillman, attorney for Plaintiffs, may withdraw as counsel in the above-captioned matter. As of August 1, 2024, Ms. Tillman will no longer be a paid employee of the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan. No substitution is necessary, nor will there be any delay in the progress of the matter as other counsel of record will continue to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs and as class counsel.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2024 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
Hello everyone, I know this is a long shot, but has anyone heard anything new on the lawsuit. My other question for everyone is what is your opinion on if we will finally get a decision by the end of this year or do you guys think we will be waiting until next year 2025 for a final decision/ruling. Just curious to hear everyone’s opinion on if the decision will come down this year or next year.
@BOBBY. Wake me up before the Fourth of July, 2025. For sure all the excuses will have vanished, and there will be a decision. Ha!
Just thought I’d check in and see if there has been any movement on the case recently. Dr. seems to keep us updated more than the ACLU. And while I appreciate everything they’re doing for us; they don’t seem to care that some of us are stressing more than others. For those that don’t understand what I mean by that: there are a lot of us here that either were NEVER supposed to be added to that list to begin with, and then there are those who have already completed the 25 years that we were originally ordered to register for. I understand that there are still others that will benefit from this lawsuit; however my concern is the two groups of us that I mentioned. I believe that everything should go back to the way it was when we were convicted, as far as the registry is concerned. And I’m well aware that my opinion is an unpopular opinion.
Here’s something new to read;
Sep 27, 2024
Order on Motion for Leave to File
158
Sep 27, 2024
Main Doc
Memorandum Opinion & Order AND ~Util – Terminate Motions
maybe someone can summarize?
Well, I hope this finally means , that those of us that are pre 2006-2011 (pre-sorna) will finally be removed from this stupid registry. I have a feeling the State will throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing again, and will be back to square one. I just hope we don’t have to file another lawsuit, Michigan needs to stop being stupid and do the right thing and end this once and for all.
Pacer monitor just put this up.
Docket last updated: 09/27/2024 11:59 PM EDT Friday,
September 27, 2024 158 115 pgs order Memorandum Opinion & Order ~Util –
Terminate Motions Fri 09/27 12:10 PM
OPINION and ORDER
(1) Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.123) and
(2) Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.129).
Joint Statement due by 10/18/2024
Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (EPar)
Order on Motion for Leave to File Fri 09/27 12:11 PM
TEXT-ONLY ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 141 Motion for Leave to File – Entered by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (CCie)
Never have to much information!
@Michigan , We will be sending out more information as we get it. We CAN NOT tell you how this will affect your case! I am giving you all the information I have at this time so please do not ask questions about this ruling!Federal Court Rules Once Again That Michigan’s SORA Is Unconstitutional ACLU calls on legislature to fix registry law to end constitutional violations.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 1, 2024
DETROIT – In the latest in a long string of judicial decisions holding Michigan’s S (SORA) unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith struck down significant portions of the law in a decision released late last week. The court’s decision in the class action lawsuit, Does III v. Whitmer, will affect tens of thousands of people and follows two recent rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal court decisions dating back to 2013, finding constitutional problems with Michigan’s registry.
In a 115-page opinion the court upheld some aspects of the registry, but – as in the prior decisions – again found multiple constitutional violations including:
The registration of people who did not commit sex offenses; The retroactive extension of registration terms to life; Harsher treatment of people with non-Michigan convictions; and Violations of registrants’ First Amendment rights.“This decision once again shows that Michigan’s registry is not only bloated, costly, and ineffective, but does not hold up to constitutional scrutiny and must be overhauled by state lawmakers,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney, who has been leading the ACLU’s registry litigation for more than a decade. “Michiganders and their families deserve a system that works by prioritizing public safety and prevention, not a failed, counter-productive approach that makes all of us less safe because it sabotages the ability of people with past convictions to find housing, employment and family support, which are key to successful reentry.”
The class action lawsuit brought eleven constitutional challenges on behalf of the more than 45,000 people on Michigan’s registry.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on six claims, including rulings that:
Retroactively extending registration terms from 25 years to life violates the Constitution.In-person reporting requirements imposed in 2011 cannot be applied to pre-2011 registrants.People who were not convicted of a sexual offense cannot be subjected to SORA without a judicial hearing.Michigan cannot impose harsher registration requirements on people with out-of-state convictions than on people with Michigan convictions. Such individuals must receive a judicial hearing to determine their registration requirements.SORA’s requirements to report internet identifiers like email and social media accounts violate registrants’ First Amendment rights.Forcing registrants to attest that they understand SORA, even if they do not, is unconstitutional compelled speech.Under the court’s decision:
About 17,000 people will be removed after they complete 25 years on the registry without another registrable offense.More than 3,000 people with out-of-state convictions will be entitled to a judicial determination of their registration requirements.A judicial hearing will be required if the state seeks to keep about 300 people on the registry based on convictions for non-sex offenses.The in-person reporting requirements will change for about 31,000 people and the internet reporting requirements will change for about 14,000 people.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.
Under SORA, the vast majority of Michigan registrants must register for life without any opportunity for a judge to consider whether registration is appropriate. Experts in the case explained that lifetime registration serves no purpose because recidivism rates go down dramatically the longer a person lives offense-free in the community.
People who have had to register for life without any individualized review include many of the plaintiffs in the case, including:
A man who had a relationship with a 15-year-old girl, who had used a fake ID to get into an over-18 club where they met. They are now married and have three children.A woman, who as a 19-year-old homeless and addicted teen, had sex with a 14-year-old boy. She went on to overcome her addiction, earned a master’s in counseling, became the clinical director of a drug treatment facility, and now has a private clinical practice.A disabled man, born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, who has the developmental age of a 9- or 10-year-old. He was convicted three decades ago of sexually touching his nephew, who is now an adult and supports his uncle’s removal from the registry.“After more than a decade of litigation and court decision after court decision finding SORA unconstitutional, it is time to focus our reform efforts on what works, not cling to an unconstitutional system that doesn’t,” added Aukerman. “Our goal must be to end sexual offending. And if we want to achieve that goal, we need to invest in prevention, support survivors and ensure that people with past convictions can reenter society successfully.”
In 2018-2019, a work group of stakeholders—which included prosecutors, the Michigan State Police, and advocates for survivors—met for about 18 months to develop legislation to address the constitutional flaws with SORA identified by courts and revise the law to reflect evidence-based practices. The group looked at shorter registration terms, individual review, paths off the registry for rehabilitated people, reduction in the number of registrable offenses, simplification of reporting, ending registration of children, and provisions for people with disabilities. Instead of adopting those proposals, in 2020 the legislature passed a law that largely mirrored the prior unconstitutional law. Friday’s decision held that the revised 2020 law is likewise unconstitutional in multiple ways.
In addition to attorneys from the ACLU, the plaintiffs are represented by retired University of Michigan law professor Paul Reingold and the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.
For additional information see:
Michigan’s Registry: Know the Facts Background on the Does III v. Whitmer litigationDoes III v. Whitmer decisionRead our full statement here.
Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The information in this email is provided for general informational purposes only. No information contained in this email should be construed as legal advice from me or ACLU of Michigan nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this email should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this email without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the State of Michigan, or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
WE DID IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙏🏽 Thank You ACLU . Long road but we made it.
DETROIT – In the latest in a long string of judicial decisions holding Michigan’s (SORA) unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith struck down significant portions of the law in a decision released late last week. The court’s decision in the class action lawsuit, Does III v. Whitmer, will affect tens of thousands of people and follows two recent rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal court decisions dating back to 2013, finding constitutional problems with Michigan’s registry.
In a 115-page opinion the court upheld some aspects of the registry, but – as in the prior decisions – again found multiple constitutional violations including:
The registration of people who did not commit sex offenses; The retroactive extension of registration terms to life; Harsher treatment of people with non-Michigan convictions; and Violations of registrants’ First Amendment rights.“This decision once again shows that Michigan’s registry is not only bloated, costly, and ineffective, but does not hold up to constitutional scrutiny and must be overhauled by state lawmakers,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney, who has been leading the ACLU’s registry litigation for more than a decade. “Michiganders and their families deserve a system that works by prioritizing public safety and prevention, not a failed, counter-productive approach that makes all of us less safe because it sabotages the ability of people with past convictions to find housing, employment and family support, which are key to successful reentry.”
The class action lawsuit brought eleven constitutional challenges on behalf of the more than 45,000 people on Michigan’s registry.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on six claims, including rulings that:
Retroactively extending registration terms from 25 years to life violates the Constitution.In-person reporting requirements imposed in 2011 cannot be applied to pre-2011 registrants.People who were not convicted of a sexual offense cannot be subjected to SORA without a judicial hearing.Michigan cannot impose harsher registration requirements on people with out-of-state convictions than on people with Michigan convictions. Such individuals must receive a judicial hearing to determine their registration requirements.SORA’s requirements to report internet identifiers like email and social media accounts violate registrants’ First Amendment rights.Forcing registrants to attest that they understand SORA, even if they do not, is unconstitutional compelled speech.Under the court’s decision:
About 17,000 people will be removed after they complete 25 years on the registry without another registrable offense.More than 3,000 people with out-of-state convictions will be entitled to a judicial determination of their registration requirements.A judicial hearing will be required if the state seeks to keep about 300 people on the registry based on convictions for non-sex offenses.The in-person reporting requirements will change for about 31,000 people and the internet reporting requirements will change for about 14,000 people.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.
Under SORA, the vast majority of Michigan registrants must register for life without any opportunity for a judge to consider whether registration is appropriate. Experts in the case explained that lifetime registration serves no purpose because recidivism rates go down dramatically the longer a person lives offense-free in the community.
People who have had to register for life without any individualized review include many of the plaintiffs in the case, including:
A man who had a relationship with a 15-year-old girl, who had used a fake ID to get into an over-18 club where they met. They are now married and have three children.A woman, who as a 19-year-old homeless and addicted teen, had sex with a 14-year-old boy. She went on to overcome her addiction, earned a master’s in counseling, became the clinical director of a drug treatment facility, and now has a private clinical practice.A disabled man, born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, who has the developmental age of a 9- or 10-year-old. He was convicted three decades ago of sexually touching his nephew, who is now an adult and supports his uncle’s removal from the registry.“After more than a decade of litigation and court decision after court decision finding SORA unconstitutional, it is time to focus our reform efforts on what works, not cling to an unconstitutional system that doesn’t,” added Aukerman. “Our goal must be to end sexual offending. And if we want to achieve that goal, we need to invest in prevention, support survivors and ensure that people with past convictions can reenter society successfully.”
In 2018-2019, a work group of stakeholders—which included prosecutors, the Michigan State Police, and advocates for survivors—met for about 18 months to develop legislation to address the constitutional flaws with SORA identified by courts and revise the law to reflect evidence-based practices. The group looked at shorter registration terms, individual review, paths off the registry for rehabilitated people, reduction in the number of registrable offenses, simplification of reporting, ending registration of children, and provisions for people with disabilities. Instead of adopting those proposals, in 2020 the legislature passed a law that largely mirrored the prior unconstitutional law. Friday’s decision held that the revised 2020 law is likewise unconstitutional in multiple ways.
In addition to attorneys from the ACLU, the plaintiffs are represented by retired University of Michigan law professor Paul Reingold and the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.
For additional information see:
Michigan’s Registry: Know the Facts Background on the Does III v. Whitmer litigationDoes III v. Whitmer decision
Respectfully Tim P ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist
We just got a message from ACLU ,did anyone else receive the email regarding the case everyone has been waiting for
what?!? I was really hoping to be able to petition for removal…I guess the state just gets to violate thousands of people’s rights and the court pretty much just says things go back to the way they were lol…thanks judge for saying the court has to honor my original plea agreement 15 years later…it’s a contract..the state didn’t follow the original contract prior to 2011…no one prior to 2011 should have to comply with registry at all anymore…the contract is void do to the states inability to up hold the contract! This is all just so stupid!
@ Michigan:
this might help someone;
Expungement Process
submitted by Christina Doery
State Rep. Graham Filler has introduced a bipartisan plan to
fix issues within Michigan’s Clean Slate expungement process.
and you
The legislation, sponsored by Filler (R-Duplain Township)
why did
and Rep. Kara Hope (D-Holt), will simplify the petition
ne, then
process, eliminate unnecessary delays, and help more Michigan
ippen to
residents benefit from the opportunities that expungement can
provide.
our life
“Clean Slate was always meant to be a second chance for
crisis. people who have paid their debt to society, but the way the law
is currently interpreted creates unnecessary hurdles,
» Filler
t when
said.
“If someone is trying to turn their life around, We
roblem
shouldn’t be making them jump through more hoops than nec-
le pain
essary. Our plan will fix that.”
etimes
House Bills 5957 and 5958 fix a major issue in the current
by the
system; how convictions during the waiting period between an
original conviction and expungement eligibility are handled.
e rea-
Under the current law, any conviction during this time requires
a separate expungement application, which causes delays and
aying
s for-
eived
lead.
1 the
eves
extra paperwork.
Nearly 70% of Project Clean Slate clients have convictions
in this waiting period, forcing them to submit multiple applica-
tions. This process is costly, time-consuming, and creates a
backlog for the court system, adding extra work for agencies
and delays for individuals.
Filler emphasized the importance of removing these barri-
and
ers.
and
“For many people, expungement means a fresh start
access to better jobs, housing, and educational opportunities,”
Filler said.
“Delays in the process can hold them back from
seizing these opportunities and improving their lives. Our bills
will ensure that one application covers all eligible convictions,
simplifying the process for everyone.”
House Bills 5957 and 5958 will allow individuals seeking
expungement to file a single application for all eligible convic-
tons, ensuring a more efficient, fair, and streamlined process
for both residents and the judicial system that processes the
applications.
House Bills 5957 and 5958 were referred to the House
if not sorry for wasting the space,,,
@Michigan, I guess alot of People have been emailing Tim and the ACLU, about Jge Goldsmiths ruling. So he sent out an email today explaining everything. So it’s definitely not over because the State will probably definitely try to appeal. I just think at least in my opinion anyway is, that everyone who is pre 2011, should be removed automatically, no appeal should even be considered as far as pre 2011 is concerned. Some of us were placed on it before a registry ever existed, or switched from 25 to Life or both again just my opinion. We shouldn’t have to suffer through more appeals. Anyone else agree with that assessment.
We got an email from ACLU,This is possibly very good news they are talking about registration starting from time of sentence or shortly after,and or ending 10 years after released for some pre 2011 depending on how judge rules they said they misspoke in the last email, I would put the link but it won’t let me Did anyone else receive this email?