Anyone who is in state custody pursuant to a state-court conviction has the right to file a petition for habeas corpus in federal court to review the constitutionality of their conviction or sentence. Traditionally, federal courts have ruled that someone who faces significant restraints on their freedom is “in custody” for purposes of being able to seek federal court review. However, in the case of Frank Corridore, a federal district court ruled that his sentence of lifetime electronic/GPS monitoring and sex offender registration do not satisfy the “in custody” requirement because the restraints on his freedom were not significant. In April 2022 the ACLU filed an appeal on behalf of Mr. Corridore in the Sixth Circuit, arguing that lifetime monitoring and registration sentences are significant enough restraints on liberty to qualify a case for federal review. Mr. Corridore has his every movement tracked by state officials, must report in person four times a year, cannot travel anywhere that lacks good GPS reception or electricity, and is subject to public humiliation because he must wear an ankle monitor for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, in June 2023 the Sixth Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that Mr. Corridore was not “in custody.” Judge Karen Nelson Moore, dissenting, wrote that “the result of the majority’s opinion is that an individual subject to highly invasive lifetime supervision resulting from a constitutionally defective conviction or sentence will have no recourse to vindicate their rights in federal court.” (Corridore v. Washington; ACLU of Michigan Attorneys Rohit Rajan, Dan Korobkin, Miriam Aukerman, and Dayja Tillman; National ACLU Attorneys Yazmine Nichols, Allison Frankel, and Trisha Trigilio.)