To sign up for updates about the ACLU of Michigan’s SORA litigation and reform work, click the button below.
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. On March 26, 2025, the district court entered a final judgment. Registrants won on some claims and lost on others, 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 Facts. We 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 final judgment which sets out what relief it granted on the claims that registrants won.
The judgment will not take effect right away. The Court has given the legislature 90 days to pass a new law, and the judgment provides for further extensions if there is new legislation. In addition, we expect that the state will appeal to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on some claims and will seek a stay while the case is on appeal. If a stay is granted, any parts of the judgment that are stayed won’t go into effect until the appeals are decided. That could take several years.
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 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, unless the legislature amends the law to cure the unconstitutional defects.
This decision does not have immediate effect. Whether a less harsh SORA is applied to people with pre-2011 offenses, whether they go back to their pre-2011 registration terms, or whether they come off the registry entirely will depend on what happens next in both the courts and the legislature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, and (2) Michigan cannot impose longer or harsher SORA requirements on people with non-Michigan convictions than are imposed on people with Michigan convictions. In addition, to determine if a non-Michigan offense is “substantially similar” to a Michigan offense—and therefore regis¬trable—the state must match the elements of the out-of-state crime against the elements of similar Michigan crimes. The elements of the offense, not the person’s conduct, are what decide the tier and registry term.
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. The state will likely appeal on some claims and will also likely ask the Court to stay, or temporarily halt enforcement of, the judgment while the case is on appeal.
As noted above, the judgment does not take immediate effect. Until further notice, registrants should continue to follow their SORA requirements because the judgment is not in effect yet.