To sign up for updates about the ACLU of Michigan’s SORA litigation and reform work, click the button below. 

SIGN UP FOR UPDATES

 

We have challenged Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) for more than a decade. In response to repeated rulings that an old version of the law was unconstitutional, the state passed a new SORA, which went into effect on March 24, 2021. Because we believe the new law did not fix the constitutional problems with the old law, in February 2022, we filed Does v. Whitmer (Does III), No. 22-cv-10209 (E.D. Mich.), challenging the new SORA as unconstitutional. The court issued a key decision on September 27, 2024. On March 26, 2025, the district court issued another decision and entered a final judgment. The court entered an amended final judgment on April 22, 2025 to fix minor clerical errors. Registrants won on some claims and lost on others.

Both sides appealed, which means they asked a higher court to review some of the claims they lost. The case is now in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is the next higher court. The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stayed some of the relief ordered by the district court, which means that the relief the district court ordered will not go into effect until after the appeals are done. Other parts of the district court’s judgment are now in effect, as detailed below.

History of the Litigation

In May 2022, the judge certified a class action and appointed our litigation team as class counsel. That means that everyone who is on Michigan’s registry is automatically part of the case.  

The court also certified several subclasses in its May 2022 order and later certified an additional subclass. Decisions about a subclass will automatically apply to all registrants who meet the definition for the subclass. You may or may not be in a subclass, and you could be in more than one subclass. The subclasses have specific legal claims. The subclasses are: 

  • Pre-2011 ex post facto subclass: people required to register based on offenses from before July 1, 2011. 
  • Retroactive extension of registration subclass: people who were retroactively required to register for life. 
  • Barred from petitioning subclass: people who have been on the registry 10 years and meet certain criteria for petitioning but cannot petition for removal after 10 years (usually because they are Tier II or III registrants, or are juveniles). 
  • Non-sex-offense subclass: people who are the registry but did not commit a sex offense. 
  • Plea bargain subclass: people who pled guilty and were retroactively subjected to SORA even though it didn’t exist at the time of their plea, and people whose registration terms were extend beyond those in effect at the time of the plea. 
  • Post-2011 subclass: people required to register based on offenses on or after July 1, 2011. 
  • Non-Michigan offense subclass: people who are required to register based on a non-Michigan conviction or adjudication. 

The exact legal definitions of the subclasses — which is what determines whether you are part of a subclass — are in the initial class certification order and the second certification order

We requested a preliminary injunction on several claims in order to give class members temporary relief while the case was being litigated. 

The state moved to dismiss the entire case. In early September 2022, the Court denied, without prejudice, both our motion for preliminary injunction as well as the state’s motion to dismiss. The Court concluded further development of the record was appropriate before ruling on either our claims or the issues raised in the state’s motion to dismiss.  The case was moved into a discovery phase where both sides had the opportunity to gather additional facts and evidence.

During the discovery phase of the case, we put together an extensive record. We were able to obtain data for the class, which experts then analyzed for a report showing that most common myths about registrants are wrong. The evidence in the case included numerous other expert reports showing that Michigan’s registry is counter-productive: because registration makes it more difficult for people to find housing, employment and family support — the key factors in preventing recidivism—the registry makes the public less safe.

The Court then ordered both parties to submit motions for summary judgment. In October 2023, we submitted our Motion for Summary Judgment along with a comprehensive Statement of FactsWe filed a response to the State’s motion for summary judgment and fact statement in December 2023.

Decisions on Motions for Summary Judgment and Final Judgment

On September 27, 2024, the Court issued a decision siding with registrants on some issues and with the state on others. After additional briefing, on March 26, 2025, the Court issued an additional decision about some outstanding legal issues. The Court also issued its judgment, and subsequently an amended judgment, which sets out what relief it granted on the claims that registrants won.

The judgment did not take effect right away. Rather, the court gave the legislature time to amend SORA. The effective date of the judgment was July 21, 2025.

Both sides appealed to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the next higher court). The state appealed some of the claims it lost, and we appealed some of the claims we lost. The state also requested a “stay” in the district court. A stay means that a judgment does not go into effect until the appeal is completed, which can take 12 – 15 months. The district court denied the state’s request for a stay. But the state then requested a stay from the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. That Court granted a stay on June 27, 2025, which it later clarified.

Some parts of the judgment are now in effect, and other parts have been stayed, as set out below.

What the Court Decided

The Court found that many parts of SORA are unconstitutional, including retroactive changes to registration requirements for people with pre-2011 offenses, the lack of due process for people with non-Michigan convictions, and reporting requirements that are confusing and limit registrants’ free speech rights. A brief summary of the Court’s decisions is below. For more details, see the September 2024 decision, March 2025 decision, and amended final judgment

Count I and II – Ex Post Facto Clause and Retroactive Extension of Registration Terms: The Court held that SORA 2021, like the previous law, is punishment and that SORA’s provisions retroactively increasing reporting requirements and retroactively extending registration terms violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court also said the unconstitutional parts of SORA 2021 cannot be separated from the constitutional parts. Therefore, SORA cannot be applied at all to people whose registrable offenses occurred before July 1, 2011. Defendants have appealed. The Sixth Circuit granted a stay, meaning these parts of the judgment are not effect.

Count III – Lack of Individualized Review: The Court held that individualized review of whether a person must register is not required as a matter of due process or equal protection. We have appealed.

Count IV – Unequal Opportunity to Petition for Removal: The argument on this claim was that because Tier II and Tier III registrants are at least as likely as Tier I registrants to become rehabilitated, denying them the same right to petition for removal as Tier I registrants violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the defendants. We have appealed.

Count V – Mandatory Reporting Requirements and Compelled Speech: The argument on this claim was that being forced to provide personal information via SORA reporting is compelled speech that violates registrants’ First Amendment rights. The Court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the defendants. This part of the Court’s judgment is now final and in effect.

Count VI – Violation of Plea Agreements: The argument on this claim was that imposing SORA on people who had entered plea agreements, not knowing that SORA would be imposed after the fact, or that SORA would change over time for the worse, violates the Due Process Clause as well as contract principles that govern criminal sentencing in plea agreements. The Court denied this claim as moot because those affected have pre-2011 offenses, and under the Court’s decision on the ex post facto claims, the Court held they are not subject to SORA 2021.

Count VII – Registration of People Who Were Not Convicted of Sex Offenses: The Court held that requiring someone to register as a sex offender when their offense was not sexual violates due process. The Court also held that people convicted of non-sex offenses cannot be required to register unless a judge decides under SORA’s “catch all” provision that the offense was sexual in nature. This part of the judgment is now final and in effect.

Count VIII – Vagueness of SORA’s Requirements: The Court held that many of SORA’s reporting requirements are vague, and that registrants cannot be required to report information under the vague provisions. The Court held that some other SORA reporting requirements are clear enough that registrants can be required to report that information. Going forward, the state will have to provide information to registrants about what is and is not reportable. For a detailed description of what is and is not reportable, see here. We have appealed some of these rulings.

Count IX – Compelled Admission of “Understanding” SORA: The Court held that making people sign a form stating that they “understand” their obligations under SORA – a form which has typically been used against them if they claimed confusion when they were prosecuted for a SORA violation – violates the First Amendment. This part of the judgment is now final and in effect.

Count X – Reporting of Electronic Information: The Court held that requiring reporting of electronic information violates registrants’ First Amendment free speech rights. Registrants will no longer need to report email addresses or internet identifiers. Previously reported information will also be removed from state databases. This part of the judgment is now final and in effect.

Count XI – Out-of-State Convictions: The Court held that (1) Michigan’s procedures for regis¬tering people with non-Michigan convictions violate due process because people with non-Michigan convictions are not given a judicial determination of their registration requirements. Defendants have appealed. The Sixth Circuit granted a stay, meaning this part of the judgment is not effect.

*****

*****

The Court ordered the state to stop registering people with non-Michigan convictions because there is no judicial process to decide what their registration requirements. Again, this order will not take effect immediately. What happens next in both the courts and the legislature will determine whether and under what procedures people with non-Michigan convictions must register. 
 

***** 

What Happens Next:

The initial district court phase of this case is coming to a close. 

We are preparing our briefs for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where we are arguing that we should get to keep the relief that we won at the District Court (Ex Post Facto Clause, retroactive extension of registration terms, and non-Michigan offenses), and that the Court of Appeals should side with us on the issues that we lost at the District Court (lack of individualized review, unequal opportunity to petition for removal, and some vagueness claims). The Court of Appeals also has a mediation office that helps people try to settle cases. The Does III case has been referred to the mediation office to see if some or all of the case might still be settled.

<< Back to SORA