Tag: SORA

Ex Post Facto: Part 3- Life After the Registry

On September 9, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that stricter SORA requirements could not retroactively apply to over 20,000 individuals whose offenses occurred before July 1, 2011, resulting in their removal from the public sex offender registry. While this legal victory is significant, the implications extend beyond the official registry, as private databases and background checks may still reflect outdated information. Families must verify removals through official channels and dispute inaccuracies with background companies. Additionally, individuals planning to relocate or travel internationally should seek legal guidance to understand registration obligations in other jurisdictions and obtain certified documentation of their removal.

Ex Post Facto: Part 2 — What Are the Likely Effects on Those Affected?

On September 9, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that individuals whose offenses occurred before July 1, 2011, could not be subjected to registration under the state's sex offender laws, leading to the removal of over 20,000 names from the registry. Although immediate changes brought relief for those removed, the ruling does not erase their convictions or eliminate social stigma associated with them. It is anticipated that this change will not lead to a spike in sexual offenses, as many removed had maintained stable lives without new offenses for years. The decision highlights a shift towards individualized risk assessment while continuing debates on public safety and registry practices.

Ex Post Facto: Part 1- The Legal Ruling

In September 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court mandated the removal of over 20,000 names from the state's public Sex Offender Registry, marking a pivotal ruling against retroactive punishment under the ex post facto principle. This decision arose from the case of Eddie Lee Smith, emphasizing that applying newer legal requirements to offenses committed before those laws were enacted violates constitutional protections. The ruling reflects a broader critique of harsh "tough on crime" policies that failed to consider individual circumstances and constitutional limits. It calls for legal frameworks that are prospective and proportionate, protecting community safety while respecting civil rights.