Retroactive Sex Offender Registration Law

  • Status: Filed
  • Latest Update: Feb 29, 2024
Placeholder image

For over a decade, the ACLU of Michigan has been challenging Michigan’s sex offender registration law which has barred people with past offenses from living and working in large portions of the state, and has subjected them to ongoing supervision and reporting requirements, in most cases for life, all without any consideration of individual circumstances. In 2012 the ACLU of Michigan, working with the University of Michigan’s clinical law program, challenged the law in federal court on behalf of six registrants—including a man who was never convicted of a sex offense and several men convicted of consensual sex with younger teens, one of whom he has since married. In 2016 the Sixth Circuit issued a groundbreaking decision ruling that the retroactive application of the amendments to those convicted before 2011 violates the United States Constitution’s rule against ex post facto laws. But despite the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, Michigan failed to bring its registry into compliance, leaving tens of thousands of other registrants at risk of prosecution unless they complied with the law’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements. Therefore, in 2018 we filed a class action lawsuit to ensure that all Michigan registrants obtain the benefit of the rulings in the earlier case. In 2020 Judge Robert Cleland ruled in favor of the class. Judge Cleland further ruled that the statute’s exclusion zones and certain reporting requirements are unconstitutionally vague for all registrants, and that strict liability prosecutions under the law are impermissible. In 2021 the Michigan Supreme Court, in a case where we filed friend-of-the-court briefs, also ruled that retroactive application of the statute is unconstitutional. Unable to enforce the old law, the legislature passed a new version which made only minor tweaks. In February 2022 we filed another class action challenging the revised law. (John Does #1-5 v. Snyder; John Does #1-6 v. Snyder; John Does A-H v. Whitmer, People v. Betts; ACLU Attorneys Miriam Aukerman, Dan Korobkin, Monica Andrade, Elaine Lewis, Rohit Rajan, and Dayja Tillman; Cooperating Attorneys Paul Reingold of U-M Law School and Roshna Bala Keen and Imani Franklin of Loevy & Loevy; co-counsel Alyson Oliver and Cameron Bell of Oliver Law Group.)

What you need to know about Does V. Snyder II

Does # 1-6 v. Snyder, No. 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich.) (Does II) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all people required to register under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA). Does II seeks to enforce a successful earlier lawsuit challenging SORA that was brought on behalf of six people (Does I). The purpose of Does II is to apply that earlier decision to all Michigan registrants. This lawsuit only applies to the version of SORA in effect before March 24, 2021, meaning it does not apply to the current version of SORA. In August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the old SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments – which created exclusion zones limiting where registrants can live and work, retroactively lengthened registration periods to life, and imposed many new and in-person reporting requirements – violated the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. See

Placeholder image

What you need to know about DOES I

In 2006 and 2011, the Michigan state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA) originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures that imposed geographic exclusion zones barring registrants from living, working or spending time with their children in much of the state and others.

Placeholder image

Basic Facts About Michigan's Sex Offender Registry

In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants.

Placeholder image

What You Need to Know About the Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA)

In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants. The amendments retroactively made most registrants register for life and imposed geographic exclusion zones barring them from living, working, or spending time with their children in large areas of every city and town. Additionally, the legislature added extensive and onerous new in-person reporting requirements that make it a crime for registrants to borrow a car, travel for a week, or get a new email account without immediately notifying the police. The changes were imposed without due process or a mechanism for review or appeal for the vast majority of registrants. 

Placeholder image

Related News & Podcasts

News & Commentary
Nov 08, 2021
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Legal Reform|
  • +1 Issue

What you need to know about Does V. Snyder II

Does # 1-6 v. Snyder, No. 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich.) (Does II) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all people required to register under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA). Does II seeks to enforce a successful earlier lawsuit challenging SORA that was brought on behalf of six people (Does I). The purpose of Does II is to apply that earlier decision to all Michigan registrants. This lawsuit only applies to the version of SORA in effect before March 24, 2021, meaning it does not apply to the current version of SORA. In August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the old SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments – which created exclusion zones limiting where registrants can live and work, retroactively lengthened registration periods to life, and imposed many new and in-person reporting requirements – violated the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. See
News & Commentary
May 26, 2021
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Legal Reform|
  • +1 Issue

What you need to know about DOES I

In 2006 and 2011, the Michigan state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA) originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures that imposed geographic exclusion zones barring registrants from living, working or spending time with their children in much of the state and others.
News & Commentary
Sep 27, 2017
Placeholder image
  • Religious Liberty|
  • +2 Issues

Basic Facts About Michigan's Sex Offender Registry

In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants.
News & Commentary
Aug 26, 2016
Placeholder image
  • Criminal Legal Reform

What You Need to Know About the Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA)

In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants. The amendments retroactively made most registrants register for life and imposed geographic exclusion zones barring them from living, working, or spending time with their children in large areas of every city and town. Additionally, the legislature added extensive and onerous new in-person reporting requirements that make it a crime for registrants to borrow a car, travel for a week, or get a new email account without immediately notifying the police. The changes were imposed without due process or a mechanism for review or appeal for the vast majority of registrants.