A Sixth Circuit panel concluded in Does v. Snyder, No. 15-1536 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016), that Michigan’s amendments to its Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) “imposes punishment” and thus the state violates the US Constitution when applying these SORA provisions retroactively. Michigan appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court, and SCOTUS in March asked for the US Acting Solicitor General to express its views on the case.
Yesterday, the Acting SG filed a brief with SCOTUS stating that in “the view of the United States, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.” The discussion section of the brief begins this way:
Michigan’s sex-offender-registration scheme contains a variety of features that go beyond the baseline requirements set forth in federal law and differ from those of most other States. After applying the multi-factor framework set out in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the court of appeals concluded that the cumulative effect of SORA’s challenged provisions is punitive for ex post facto purposes. While lower courts have reached different conclusions in analyzing particular features of various state sex-offender-registration schemes, the court of appeals’ analysis of the distinctive features of Michigan’s law does not conflict with any of those decisions, nor does it conflict with this Court’s holding in Smith. Every court of appeals that has considered an ex post facto challenge to a sex-offender-registry statutory scheme has applied the same Smith framework to determine whether the aggregate effects of the challenged aspects of that scheme are punitive. And although most state sex-offender-registry schemes share similar features, they vary widely in their form and combination of those features. Accordingly, to the extent the courts of appeals have reached different outcomes in state sex offender-registry cases, those outcomes reflect differences in the statutory schemes rather than any divergence in the legal framework. Finally, petitioners’ concern (Pet. 26-29) that the court of appeals’ decision will prevent the State from receiving some federal funding does not warrant review. That concern is premature, as it may well be the case that Michigan can continue to receive federal funds notwithstanding this decision. And the decision does not prevent the State from implementing a sex-offender-registration scheme that is consistent with federal law. Further review is therefore not warranted.
The full petition can be viewed here: