SORA Court Rulings: Betts, Lymon, Does v Whitmer, Kardasz, Ellis and Smith

Since 2016, courts have held that Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act is punishment, that its 2011 and 2021 versions cannot be applied to offenses committed before the 2011 amendments, that it cannot be imposed for offenses with no sexual component, and that several of its reporting rules are unconstitutional.^[6][1][2][7] The statute's text has not been rewritten to match, so the printed law and the enforceable law differ.^[4]

Law as of 4 October 2026. This page reports rulings and official statements read on that date. A federal appeal was still pending when the Michigan State Police published its September 2026 legal update, and the State Police said on September 11, 2026 that its removal numbers could change as its review continued.^[8][9] This page describes what courts held and what the State Police have done; it does not tell any person whether his or her own duty has ended. A registrant should confirm current duties with the Michigan State Police Sex Offender Registry Unit or an attorney. The unit's telephone number is (517) 241-1806.^[10]

This page takes the rulings in date order and then sorts the present state of the law into what is enforceable, what is blocked, and what is unsettled.

The rulings in date order

Date	Case and court	Holding
2016	Does #1-5 v Snyder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit	The 2006 and 2011 SORA amendments imposed punishment, and applying them retroactively was unconstitutional[6]
July 27, 2021	People v Betts, Michigan Supreme Court	The 2011 SORA, applied to registrants whose criminal acts predated the 2011 amendments, violates the ban on ex post facto laws[11]
July 29, 2024	People v Lymon, Michigan Supreme Court	Imposing the 2021 SORA on non-sexual offenders is cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution[2]
April 22, 2025	Does v Whitmer, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Amended Judgment)	The 2021 SORA is unconstitutional in several respects, including several reporting requirements[7]
December 19, 2025	People v Kardasz, Michigan Supreme Court	The 2021 SORA constitutes punishment but is not cruel or unusual[3]
May 29, 2026	People v Shaver, Michigan Supreme Court	Betts applies retroactively to defendants on collateral review[12]
July 22, 2026	People v Ellis, Michigan Supreme Court	Imposing registration under the "recapture" provision as a penalty for non-sexual offenses is cruel or unusual punishment as applied to the defendant and similarly situated individuals[13]
September 9, 2026	People v Smith, Michigan Supreme Court (order)	The 2021 SORA may not be retroactively applied to registrants whose criminal acts occurred before enactment of the 2011 SORA amendments[1]

Betts (2021) and Shaver (2026): the 2011 act and old convictions

In People v Betts, the Michigan Supreme Court held that "the 2011 SORA, when applied to registrants whose criminal acts predated the enactment of the 2011 SORA amendments, violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws," and it vacated a failure-to-register conviction based on a 1993 offense.^[11] The Legislature had by then rewritten the act: the version now in force took effect March 24, 2021.^[14]

People v Shaver settled whether Betts helps people whose cases were already final. A unanimous court held that Betts "applies retroactively to defendants on collateral review," so a final conviction for failing to comply with the 2011 SORA, where the underlying sex offense predated the 2011 amendments, can be challenged by a motion for relief from judgment.^[12] See failure-to-register penalties.

Lymon (2024) and Ellis (2026): registration for non-sexual offenses

People v Lymon involved unlawful imprisonment of minors. The court concluded that "the imposition of the 2021 SORA on non-sexual offenders like defendant constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution" and affirmed that the defendant "and other offenders whose crimes lacked a sexual component are entitled to removal from the sex-offender registry."^[2]

People v Ellis applied the same clause to a different provision. MCL 28.723(1)(e) requires registration by a person with an older listed-offense conviction that did not require registration, who is then convicted of any other felony on or after July 1, 2011. A unanimous court held that imposing registration under that provision as a penalty for non-sexual offenses is cruel or unusual punishment as applied to the defendant and similarly situated individuals.^[13] The Legislature's own annotation to the statute now notes the ruling.^[13]

Kardasz (2025): punishment, but not cruel or unusual

People v Kardasz cut both ways. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the 2021 SORA "constitutes punishment, but is not cruel or unusual" under the Michigan Constitution, on its face or as applied to a Tier III offender convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct against a child.^[3] Older statements that registration is only a civil regulation do not survive the first half of that holding; the second half means lifetime registration for a sexual offense was upheld in that case.^[3]

The court did not decide the challenges to lifetime electronic monitoring. It denied leave to appeal on those issues.^[3] See lifetime electronic monitoring.

Smith (September 9, 2026): offenses before the 2011 amendments

Betts had dealt with the 2011 act. People v Smith answered the question for the 2021 act. The defendant had Michigan convictions for acts committed in 1995 and 2010, and the court held: "Requiring him to register under the 2021 SORA is therefore an ex post facto punishment."^[15][1] It added that the 2021 SORA "may not be retroactively applied to registrants whose criminal acts subjecting them to registration occurred before enactment of the 2011 SORA amendments, and severance or revival of prior versions of the SORA is not appropriate."^[1]

The Michigan State Police described its response in two documents:

• An official statement of September 11, 2026 said that about 43,000 offenders were actively registered or required to be registered at the time of the order, that more than 20,000 had been removed as of that date, and that "these numbers could change" as the review process continued.^[9]
• Legal Update No. 172 states that every offender registered solely because of a Michigan registrable offense committed before July 1, 2011 will be permanently removed, and that offenders removed because of the order "have no further duty to register, report, or verify as a sex offender in Michigan, and are not in violation of any Michigan law by not doing so."^[9]
• The same update says the order has no effect on the validity of the underlying conviction, and that removal means the registration information is permanently removed from the law enforcement database as well as the public website.^[16]

Does v Whitmer: the federal class action

In Does v Whitmer, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled on summary judgment on September 27, 2024 and entered an Amended Judgment on April 22, 2025.^[7] The judgment has parts that are final, parts that are stayed, and parts that registrants lost.

Issue	District court ruling	Status in the sources read
Email addresses and internet identifiers	Reporting violates the First Amendment; State permanently enjoined	Not appealed; final and in effect[4]
Attesting to "understanding" one's duties	Unconstitutional compelled speech	Final; language removed from the Explanation of Duties form[17]
Offenses with no sexual element (certain kidnapping offenses, unlawful imprisonment, leading away a child)	No registration unless a court first determines the offense by its nature was a sexual offense	Not appealed by the State; in effect[18]
"Used by" phones and vehicles; intended temporary stays	Wording held vague; narrower reporting applies	Registrants appealed some reporting rulings[19][20][5]
Offenses before July 1, 2011	Retroactive application violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Appealed by the State and stayed[7][5]
Non-Michigan convictions	Process and harsher treatment unconstitutional; registration enjoined	Appealed by the State and stayed; those registrants must keep registering during the appeal[7][5]
Lifetime registration without individual review; unequal access to petitions	State won	Registrants appealed[21][5]

The stay on the pre-2011 ruling has been overtaken in state court for the people Smith covers: the Michigan Supreme Court reached the same conclusion under both constitutions, and the State Police have acted on it.^[1][9]

On the appeal itself, this guide reports only what an official source says. The State Police legal update of September 2026 states that the federal class action was "currently on appeal" to the Sixth Circuit, that oral arguments were held on July 21, 2026, and that the decision may further affect people required to register for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2011.^[8] Whether the Sixth Circuit has ruled since that update was published should be checked before relying on any appealed part of the judgment.

What is enforceable, what is blocked, and what is unsettled

Still enforceable

• Registration under the 2021 SORA for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2011. In People v Shannon, a published opinion of May 27, 2026, the Court of Appeals rejected cruel-or-unusual and ex post facto challenges to registration by a defendant whose offenses were committed while the 2011 SORA was in effect.^[22]
• The tier periods of 15 years, 25 years and life, in-person verification, and the 3-business-day reports for residence, employment, higher-education enrollment and name.^[23][24][25]
• The criminal penalties for a willful violation.^[26]
• Registration by people with non-Michigan convictions while the stay lasts, as stated in the December 31, 2025 notice.^[5]

Held unconstitutional or enjoined

• Applying the 2021 SORA to registrants whose criminal acts occurred before enactment of the 2011 amendments (People v Smith, Michigan Supreme Court, September 9, 2026).^[1]
• Registration for offenses that lacked a sexual component (People v Lymon, Michigan Supreme Court, July 29, 2024; Does v Whitmer).^[2][18]
• "Recapture" registration as a penalty for a later non-sexual offense (People v Ellis, Michigan Supreme Court, July 22, 2026).^[13]
• Reporting of email addresses and internet identifiers, and compelled attestation of understanding (Does v Whitmer, Amended Judgment of April 22, 2025).^[4][17]

Unsettled

• Pre-2011 convictions from other states. The defendant in Smith had Michigan convictions.^[15] The State Police legal update states the agency's position that a person registered in Michigan solely because another state requires registration, for conduct committed in that state before July 1, 2011, is similarly required to be removed.^[27] That is an agency statement to officers, not a court holding, and the federal relief for non-Michigan convictions is stayed.^[5]
• How out-of-state offenses are compared to Michigan offenses. The federal judgment requires one method and the Michigan Court of Appeals in In re Harder declined to adopt it, keeping an Iowa conviction registrable after Iowa ended the person's registration.^[28]
• Federal obligations of people removed under Smith. The Sixth Circuit has held that federal registration obligations "are independent of state-law sex offender duties," and no source read for this guide addresses how that applies to a person removed under Smith.^[29]
• The reporting rulings on appeal. The protection for not reporting items the judgment excludes lasts "unless or until" that part of the judgment is reversed.^[30]
• Set-aside and registration. Two statutes point in opposite directions on whether setting aside a conviction ends registration, and no decision reconciling them was found.^[31]

Two rulings on procedure worth knowing

In People v Nunez, the Court of Appeals held in 2022 that because SORA is a punitive consequence, a defendant must be informed of it before entering a guilty plea and the registration requirement must be included in the judgment of sentence.^[32] See plea bargains in CSC cases.

In In re Harder, the Court of Appeals held that the absence of a time-based removal petition for Tier II offenders does not violate equal protection.^[33] See petitioning to be removed from the registry.

What the rulings did not change

None of these decisions restored the 1,000-foot school safety zones: those sections were repealed from SORA by the Legislature effective March 24, 2021, and a similar condition survives only for people on probation for a listed offense.^[34][35] See residency and school zone rules. For the current duty list see what registrants must report, and for a dated list of statutory changes see the law changes timeline.