Michigan State Police Begins Removing Sex Offenders from Registry to Comply with Michigan Supreme Court Order
“On September 9, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) amendments cannot be used to retroactively extend the registration requirements of anyone who committed their relevant crime prior to July 1, 2011, because doing so would be unconstitutional,” said Col. James F. Grady II, director of the Michigan State Police (MSP). “The MSP did not make this change to the law. However, the department maintains the database, is required to comply with the Court’s order and is taking the necessary steps to implement the ruling. Any concerns about or efforts to change the law should be directed to the state Legislature.”
At the time of the order, approximately 43,000 offenders were actively registered or required to be registered. As of Friday, September 11, the MSP has removed more than 20,000 offenders.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. Why would the state not decide to immediately appeal and pause MSP from removing registrants from the registry.
a. Were they informed that to bring this to SCOTUS with the data behind this it could force them to review the what they used in the original case that ruled the registry not punishment.
Because the Michigan Supreme Court held that Michigan SORNA violates both the United States and the Michigan Constitutions. While the Supreme Court of the United States can reverse the portion of the order interpreting the U.S. Constitution, under principles of federalism it is without the power to reverse a state Supreme Court decision interpreting its own state constitution unless there is a conflict between the state constitution and the United States constitution, which there is not here. This comes down to a question of interpreting the meaning of “ex post facto law,” which can have different meanings under state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is often the case that state constitutions provide greater protections of civil rights than the U.S. Constitution. A good example is Pennsylvania and its line of PA SORNA cases, some of which rested on a right to reputation found in the PA constitution but not the U.S. constitution.
Also, there is no direct “appeal” of a state supreme court ruling. The State of Michigan can only petition for a writ of certiorari, which SCOTUS can then grant or deny. Granting the writ doesn’t overrule the decision, but allows the petitioner to seek further review. Over 99% of all petitions for cert. are denied by SCOTUS each year.
The Michigan State Police sent us letters months ago to inform registrants that they expected changes to the law pending the appeal by the state in the Federal case. The case brought here in the Michigan Supreme Court WAS pursuant to an appeal that the State of Michigan was party to. The state may decide to appeal the decision to federal court, but they couldn’t do so until the decision was rendered. I give credit to the State Police for acting quickly here. But we have been disappointed before several times.
We can utilize this victory as a win. Try to find the perfect plaintiff who committed a crime before 2011 in Michigan recently came here for vacation and now can sue to be removed from the Florida registry.
At this point Florida will have to defend itself as to why a person who no longer resides in the state is still being considered high risk even though the state of Michigan doesn’t and they no longer live in Florida.
Florida would have to explain how their registry is not punishment when it in facts put more restraints on the registrants than Michigan does.
I would say that this is another crack in the dam of bringing down the registry, but this is a huge. Now every State Supreme Court case can site this Michigan case as showing the registry is in fact punishment that you can’t add on new statues after new statues.
Now every case will have to show burden of proof as to why their state registry differs from Michigans.
Will this victory in Michigan help registrants in Florida 🙏🏽
Hi Psalms,
It will not directly as this is the MI Supreme Court. However, it can be used persuasively in Florida. Brick by brick. The only place they could go would be the SCOTUS, but they already refused to hear the case in Doe V Snyder 6th circuit court. But they will have to eventually hear a case maybe its FAC’s case here in Florida.
Under current Florida law, if the only reason Florida required registration was due to an out-of-state registration requirement, then Michigan removal could allow for removal in Florida. However, that would only be possible if the Michigan offense requiring (former) registration in Michigan is not also a registerable offense in Florida. An example could be a misdemeanor sex offense in Michigan that requires registration there when no similar crime exists in Florida, or the Florida offense does not require registration. There are no Florida misdemeanors that require registration, only felonies. That’s not the case in every state.
It was a unanimous judicial decision and that wasn’t the only aspect. While not applying to many other states the precident could. I’ve emailed you a letter from th ACLU regarding the decision. I can post it here or if you check your email may find more relevant or interesting material including the ACLU attorneys caveat that while the State Police are acting on it currently there is nothing to stop the legislature from trying to do another Hail Mary law (which they e done many regarding th Does case) or trying some new fangled multi- layer nee fangled registry in a registry scheme…PS .. Hopefully they don’t but the state has proven very resilient in its efforts to continually break the law and subvert the courts .