Opinion ID: 6115774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: parallel federal litigation

Text: During defendant’s appeal in state court, related litigation has progressed through the federal courts. In 2012, five plaintiffs required to register as Tier III offenders sued Michigan’s governor and the director of the Michigan State Police, arguing that the 2011 SORA was unconstitutional on several grounds. In a series of opinions, 9 the district court partially ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, holding that the 2011 SORA’s student-safety zone provisions were unconstitutionally vague, that certain in-person reporting provisions were unconstitutionally vague, that certain in-person reporting provisions violated the First Amendment, and that registrants could not be held strictly liable for violating the 2011 SORA’s requirements. However, the district court rejected the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims, including their argument that the retroactive application of the 2011 SORA violated ex post facto protections. 7 People v Betts, 504 Mich 893, 893 (2019). 8 People v Betts, 507 Mich ___ (2021). 9 See Does 1-4 v Snyder, 932 F Supp 2d 803 (ED Mich, 2013); Does # 1-5 v Snyder, 101 F Supp 3d 672 (ED Mich, 2015); Doe #1-5 v Snyder, 101 F Supp 3d 722 (ED Mich, 2015). 7 On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the retroactive application of the 2011 SORA did violate constitutional ex post facto provisions. Does #1-5 v Snyder, 834 F3d 696, 705-706 (CA 6, 2016) (Does I). It reasoned that the cumulative punitive effects of the 2011 SORA outweighed the nonpunitive intent of the Legislature such that the retroactive application of the 2011 SORA constituted the retroactive application of punishment in violation of the federal Constitution. Id. Because this holding rendered the 2011 SORA inapplicable to the federal plaintiffs, the Sixth Circuit declined to address the remainder of the issues decided by the district court. Id. at 706. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Snyder v Does # 1-5, 138 S Ct 55 (2017). Shortly after the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Does I, six other plaintiffs filed a classaction complaint in the federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the 2011 SORA on the same grounds raised by the Does I plaintiffs. These plaintiffs also noted that although the Does I plaintiffs had received a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit on their ex post facto challenge, the state of Michigan had continued to enforce the 2011 SORA against all SORA registrants. Ultimately, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs and entered an order permanently enjoining the state of Michigan from enforcing the unconstitutional provisions of the 2011 SORA identified in Does I against any registrant and from enforcing the 2011 SORA retroactively. Doe v Snyder, 449 F Supp 3d 719, 737738 (ED Mich, 2020) (Does II). 10 In so doing, the district court rejected the possibility that 10 The district court originally entered a stipulated order granting declaratory relief on the ex post facto arguments in May 2019 but deferred consideration of a remedy in order to give the Michigan Legislature an opportunity to remedy SORA’s constitutional infirmity. The Legislature did not do so, and litigation recommenced. 8 portions of the 2011 SORA or an earlier version of SORA could be constitutionally applied retroactively. Id. at 731-735. The district court also rejected the defendants’ request to certify these issues to this Court. Id. at 729-731. The district court directed the parties to draft a proposed judgment and ordered that the judgment would be effective 60 days after its entry. Id. at 739. However, that process was hindered by the global outbreak of the severe acute respiratory disease known as COVID-19. In April 2020, the district court entered an order suspending final judgment “for the duration of the current COVID-19 crisis” but preliminarily enjoining the state from “enforcing registration, verification, school zone, and fee violations of SORA that occurred or may occur from February 14, 2020, until the current crisis has ended . . . .” Doe v Snyder, ___ F Supp 3d ___, ___ (ED Mich, 2020) (Case No. 16-13137). Proceedings resumed the following year, and in June 2021, the district court issued an order resolving several disagreements regarding the content of a final judgment. Doe v Snyder, ___ F Supp 3d ___, ___ (ED Mich, 2021) (Case No. 16-13137). This order also extended the interim injunction to July 12, 2021, and directed the parties to produce a joint proposed judgment by that time. Id. The court subsequently extended the deadline to July 19, 2021. To date, a final judgment has not been entered.