Michigan legislators get 90 days to fix sex offender registry

A stipulation was entered in what has been called “Does v. Snyder II”, giving the Michigan Legislature 90 days to fix their unconstitutional sex offender law.

In Does v. Snyder, the 6th circuit found the retroactive application of amendments to Michigan’s sex offender laws to violate the constitution under ex post facto grounds. To do that, they had to find that the registry was punishment.

It seems lawmakers in Michigan are working on a fix, because both sides stipulated to an order giving them 90 days to roll something out.

A copy of the order can be found here.


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

16 thoughts on “Michigan legislators get 90 days to fix sex offender registry

  • May 26, 2019

    I hope the Michigan legislature does nothing. Pretty sure the federal court would then be forced to strike down the Michigan registry en totem. Can’t force the petitioners to abide by an unconstitutional law. Doubt the state would appeal either, though I wish they would. Don’t think the USSC would ignore a district court striking down a state’s registry.

    Reply
    • May 26, 2019

      Getting one of these cases to the SCOTUS is s two edged sword. It could benefit us in all states if decided in our favor striking down the constitutionality of registries as they exist or if decided against us could validate the registries and thus hurt us permanently. I say the sooner a case gets there the better. Hopefully its one that has broad enough reach to effect a lot of us. A very narrowly defined case could do more to make the water more murky.

      Reply
    • May 26, 2019

      The Supremes have already sided with the 6th circuit by not getting involved. The only recent cases they have Taken, packingham, was, in my opinion, more about 1st Amendment rights than SORNA and Gundy is more about delegation of Power than SORNA.

      I think the Supremes are comfortable let the states supremes and the COA’s deal with it.

      This amazes me as I always thought the US Constitution applied across all states.

      Reply
  • May 24, 2019

    I am on the Michigan registry, so I have been following this case closely as it directly affects me. The legislators simply don’t want to vote on anything that makes them appear to be soft on sex offenders, so they have simply done nothing, an action that they excel at. While the resolution of the case will relieve me of several requirements, I will still be on the registry for life. However, the larger hope is the possibility of Michigan eventually abolishing the registry completely. Our new Attorney General has already gone on record as opposing the registry because of its punitive effects and lack of evidence that registries actually reduce sex offenses. I hope that the ACLU goes back to the favorable Federal District Court decision that plainly ruled the registry itself to be unconstitutional. Since the Attorney General would be in charge of defending the State, perhaps she wouldn’t put up a fight at all and agree that the courts should throw the entire registry out as unconstitutional. I hope.

    Reply
    • May 28, 2019

      I’ve been on Michigan sex offenders registry since 2000. The law has changed more than four or five times, l do not receive and notification of changes only when the tier l -ll or tier lll. Anything change is when l go on line for “new” laws two months prior to new year

      Reply
      • May 28, 2019

        Since the new $50 annual charge Michigan gets 2 plus million dollars a year….great paycheck huh???

        Reply
  • May 24, 2019

    I would think that if these laws being applied backward is found unconstitutional, we would all have lawsuits. Think of all the anguish we have been subjected to. Housing issues, employment issues, derision by the public. Unfortunately, I don’t believe a jury would award us much exactly because of the damage this registry has done. There is no unbiased venue for us to have a case heard in. Our families, (mothers, fathers, wives, children, etc.) who have been affected by our stigma, make the most relatable victims to a jury and would receive much better settlements as they are not as stigmatized by the unconstitutional laws. The very law that is unconstitutional will be the reason that registrants themselves will not receive much compensation. That’s how bad the damage is. It has made people believe that we don’t deserve anything and has made them also believe that the law maybe should’ve stood. They most likely won’t be on our side in any settlement decided by a jury.

    This, of course, is my opinion and you are free to disagree.

    Reply
  • May 24, 2019

    This is great. (I think… I hope) So if my understanding is correct, and it is US Federal law that requires states to have some kind of registry…. seems to me that fixing the Federal law first makes sense. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

    Reply
    • May 24, 2019

      Federal law doesn’t require it, but it does provide funds to states whose registries follow Federal minimum standards. I think Florida is one of only about 18 states that adhere to these standards (and then some!) and get the funds.

      Reply
    • May 24, 2019

      I don’t think that you’re wrong.

      Reply
  • May 24, 2019

    Sure would be nice to hear some good news from Florida…

    Reply
  • May 24, 2019

    So does this mean possible lawsuit,s.

    Reply
    • May 24, 2019

      This is the outcome of a lawsuit.

      Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *