MI: Michigan sex offenders seek individual liability for enforcement of vacated rules

5/30/23 UPDATE: MI: Michigan sex offenders lose appeal to hold state officials liable for registry rules

 

Source: courthousenews.com 5/3/23

A lower court found state officials immune over their continued enforcement of unconstitutional sex offender registration requirements.

CINCINNATI (CN) — A class of anonymous sex offenders urged the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday to reverse a judgment that granted several state officials immunity.

The class had brought a federal lawsuit in 2021 over a series of amendments to Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act, otherwise known as SORA.

Importantly, the 2006 and 2011 amendments — which prohibited sex offenders from residing, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school and imposed onerous in-person reporting requirements — had already been held unconstitutionally vague in two previous lawsuits.

Going after Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Col. Joseph Gaspar, who directs the Michigan State Police, for damages, the class said the officials are liable in their individual capacities for enforcing provisions after court orders had invalidated them. The class also named Governor Rick Snyder as a defendant as well as the former director of the state police, Kriste Etue.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the suit in September 2022, finding that all four were entitled to sovereign immunity.

Roberts agreed with the officials that the state was the “real party in interest” in the lawsuit and emphasized the relief granted in the previous lawsuits was rendered exclusively against the state.

Pushing for a Sixth Circuit reversal, the class argued that its complaint made clear the officials were being sued because of their actions as individuals to allow continued enforcement of the unconstitutional SORA amendments, which prevents the application of sovereign immunity.

“As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison,” they wrote in a brief, “‘the very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.’

“Nothing changed for plaintiffs after [the initial case] because that case was not a class action and defendants refused to accept that old SORA was constitutionally defective and the defendants in [the second case] were sued in their official capacity for injunctive relief only.”

The officials responded meanwhile with language from the complaint against them, emphasizing for example its claim that “the State of Michigan continued to subject tens of thousands of registrants to retroactive punishments.”

“Artful pleading cannot circumvent the true gravamen of the complaint,” the officials argued in a brief to the appeals court.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Vacated civil regimes do seem to have a history. I know WI abandoned what it called extended supervision for SOR. WI did it by statute. This has been a swaying argument in 2 of my seven FTR indictments. We can only speculate WHY that reality wasn’t applied to the ” procedural due process claims” in Connecticut DPS. Surely Connecticut people can change the law, but may not be permitted to uphold that which is not law today. When states INTEND to move away from a regime it generally means it was ineffective.

So explain to me again what incentive the states have for paying attention to any ruling the court makes that they do not like? If the court decides that yeah you ignored my orders, but who cares? Then the court becomes as the brits say redundant and there might as well not be a court.

The buck has to stop somewhere as Pres Truman said and it was with him, so why can these at the top who sign laws into action not be held accountable again? Does the buck not stop with them?