Michigan Supreme Court Upholds 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act AS APPLIED to one individual – It’s punishment, just not cruel and unusual punishment
The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a decision in People of Michigan v. Robert James Kardasz, a case that once again highlights how courts across the country are grappling with the constitutional limits of modern sex-offender registration laws. While the ruling directly applies only to Michigan, its reasoning has clear implications for Florida and other states that maintain expansive, lifetime registration schemes.
Robert James Kardasz was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. In addition to incarceration, the trial court imposed lifetime sex-offender registration under Michigan’s 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), along with lifetime electronic monitoring. Kardasz challenged these requirements, arguing that the registration and monitoring provisions constituted cruel or unusual punishment under both the Michigan Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. His appeal ultimately reached the Michigan Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Court acknowledged something advocates have long argued: that modern sex-offender registration laws, despite being labeled “civil” by legislatures, operate in many ways as punishment. The Court recognized that lifetime registration, public disclosure, and ongoing in-person reporting impose significant, affirmative restraints on individuals long after they have completed their criminal sentences. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that these burdens, at least as applied to Kardasz, did not rise to the level of “cruel or unusual punishment.” The majority reasoned that the severity of the underlying offense, combined with the state’s asserted interest in public safety, justified lifetime registration under Michigan’s constitution and under federal constitutional standards.
The Court’s analysis reflects a careful—but ultimately deferential—approach. While it stopped short of declaring SORA a purely civil regulatory scheme, it also declined to strike it down. Instead, the Court emphasized proportionality, suggesting that lifetime registration may be constitutionally permissible when imposed on individuals convicted of the most serious offenses. This reasoning leaves the door open to future as-applied challenges by individuals whose offenses or circumstances are less severe, even as it upholds the statute in this particular case.
Kardasz also challenged the imposition of lifetime electronic monitoring, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable search and an excessive punishment. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to fully revisit those claims, effectively allowing the lower court’s ruling upholding lifetime monitoring to stand. As a result, both lifetime registration and lifetime electronic monitoring remain intact under Michigan law for individuals in similar circumstances.
For advocates in Florida, this decision is worth close attention. Florida’s sex-offender registry is among the most punitive in the nation, with lifetime registration, extensive public disclosure, frequent reporting requirements, and severe penalties for even technical violations. Like Michigan, Florida has consistently argued that its registry is a civil, regulatory measure rather than punishment. Yet courts—including Florida’s own—have increasingly acknowledged that these laws impose real, lasting restraints on liberty.
What makes the Michigan decision particularly relevant is the Court’s willingness to concede that SORA functions as punishment, even while upholding it. That acknowledgment is significant. It reflects a growing judicial recognition that sex-offender registries are not merely passive databases but systems that actively regulate where people can live, work, and exist in society. For Florida, where challenges to the registry often fail at the threshold question of whether the law is punitive at all.
At the same time, the Michigan decision serves as a cautionary reminder. Courts remain reluctant to invalidate registration schemes wholesale, especially when dealing with serious offenses and when legislatures justify these laws in the name of public safety. Success in Florida is therefore likely to depend on narrowly tailored challenges that focus on disproportionality, retroactive application, lack of individualized risk assessment, and the cumulative effects of lifetime registration combined with other restrictions, rather than broad facial attacks.
The decision can be found here: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4af909/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/sct/165008_100_01.pdf, thanks Eugene for bringing it to our attention!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It sounds good, but only as good as our legal system interprets it to say. I remember growing up, who ever had the ball and bat set the rules and boundaries of the game. We have a legal system that determines what the people meant when they wrote the Constitution. Even the people wrote the Constitution our legal system will what it means for them not us.
Hard to believe MI SC came back with this ruling when there is an ongoing federal case from MI that the 6th COA sided with the Does in Doe v Snyder 2016. MI legislature just keeps rewriting the law
Great write up @FAC. Really appreciate the detail and consideration you put into this.
Interesting this is from the state court, not the feds, so the state of MI is really hammered from both sides on this topic. I hope this and the fed case still being considered at the 6th CCOA is a starting template for others to continue to hammer away at their situations whatever state or territory (district) they may be in.
TS, I am not sure what you mean. The Michigan Supremes, while stating that SORNA is punishment, still did not invalidate it. They left it intact. If the language is the win so be it but the win we need is “yes, it is punishment and unconstitutional and their fore no longer binding.”
It is. Both the State and Federal Court agree that the Michigan Registry is Punishment.
Will that ruling have any impact on florida since the Feds ruled it punishment?
See the accompanying article, which mentions Florida seven times.
Attacking the constant overreach, such as the Union County ordinance, is an important way to begin.
Do judges ever read this?
The most powerful line in the U.S. Constitution is often considered to be the phrase from the Preamble:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I have read this over and over and I cannot fathom how this is not being applied correctly by judges and law makers. It is the “Liberty” part that gets me.
Definition: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
I’m having a hard time finding that language in the Constitution, Jack.
Because you won’t. This famous passage is the opening of the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence.
TS
Yes I quoted right but gave the quote to the wrong famous passage. But although I made a little error, the impact of the statement is still powerful and meaningful.
And FAC didn’t fact check me either LOL
But again, the point was not so much where is was found, but the meaning of what they said in the Declaration, and it is not being upheld. And if you need to know, I did graduate from the 7th grade three times LOL
I think you’re thinking of the Declaration of Independence.
FAC
Yes I mixed them up. But the intentions of what it says was the main point. But yes I mis-quoted. Still a powerful statement though.
Progress is progress. 💖 I know it’s not the most magical outcome but it is progress and that is a good thing.