HUGE WIN IN MICHIGAN: Judge Invalidates Portions of SORA
Today, A federal district court Judge granted a motion permanently enjoining the enforcement of Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry against the primary class and enforcing the entirety of Michigan’s SORA against registrants whose offenses predate the enactment of 2011 Amendment.
The entire opinion can be read below and we’ve not had a chance to digest it yet, but we can tell you that this is GREAT NEWS and a Huge win for persons required to register in Michigan who have been subjected to registration requirements that were already declared unconstitutional years ago.
Does v. Snyder II – ORDER GRANTING
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Tired old Man, All I know since my conviction was way back in 1992 when I was 23 years old. and there was no such thing as a registry back then, I and many others will be removed from the registry altogether.
Lets rational this with facts for a moment then reply with if you still actually think you will be off the hit list.
1). attorney fighting for the Doe’s states there should be a list
2). Judge finds parts of law unconstitutional
3). after several years unconstitutional law still in effect (how is an unconstitutional still allowed to be enforced)
4). after several years judge rules again unconstitutional and gives the state 60 days after the ruling that the parts of the law are unconstitutional to correct the law but still the unconstitutional law is still in place! (only against SO’s is an unconstitutional law allowed to stand! it should have been immediately struck down since it is unconstitutional!!!! Constitution means nothing anymore and this case proves it!!!!)
5). Court enjoins state from enforcing the law.
That’s the important part of this new ruling.
When the Michigan legislature rewrites the sora law, they will almost certainly carve out exceptions for “good” sex offenders (roadside pee-ers, Romeo-Juliets and possibly non violent (CP)).
This is not going to change much except to further divide and weaken us. It will erode our numbers and quiet our voices.
Meanwhile, the lead ACLU attorney is holding a press conference on FACEBOOK, a platform from which sex offenders are completely banned!
Don’t fall for this. It is too little….Much too little!!
Oh, by the way, have you noticed how many political announcements are made on FACEBOOK? And how many business blogs are on FACEBOOK?
We are completely vanned from FACEBOOK.
I cannot even access the corporate website of the company for which I work because it is on FACEBOOK.
HMMM……”Second Class Citizen” is one phrase that come to mind!
I’m sure if you listen to the next registry matters pod cast Monday or Tuesday it will be covered in full deatil..
Praise God!!!!! Praise God!!!!! Praise God!!!!!
We finally have seen a big win on our behalf!!!
Let’s hope that this will reflect in an almost certain positive way in all other states of the Union.
People and Judges are finally beginning to see that the registry does nothing to protect anyone or prevent any crime.
Praise God!!!!! Praise God!!!!! Praise God!!!!!!
I too love the Lord but will hold back any excitement until anything substantial actually happens. ie anyone being removed from the registry or actual lessening of sanctions.
Yes it for sure is some good news but I think some did not actually read the article. The state still has a bunch of time to come up with a plan and even after that they can request an extension and then it could take years to implement the plan as it is hashed back and forth between the courts and the law makers.
My thing is, if the adding of new sanctions is illegal, how is not the entire registry for post pre 1997 ex-offenders not illegal. ? Even the judge won’t address that, but I guess a small amount of correction is easier to digest that a total squashing of the law as unconstitutional.
But yes the Word does say “In all things give God the Glory” so will try and maintain a positive outlook knowing it is in His hands.
I think that I should include a quote from that ruling that bears our attention:
” The court’s duty is to invalidate those portions of SORA
that violate the Constitution. In so doing, the court recognizes that its ruling will fracture
the existing structure of SORA. However, the court anticipates that its ruling will reignite
efforts to finalize a new, unified registration statute that can survive constitutional
review, as has the national model, SORNA.
But until such time as the legislature acts, SORA will be unenforceable against a
large portion of registrants and may be enforced only in part against the remaining
registrants.”
In other words, the Judge is still giving the state one more chance.