You are here

Michigan files supplemental brief replying to solicitor general

By Robin . . . Claiming that the Solicitor General’s amicus brief is unpersuasive, Michigan’s Attorney General, Bill Schuette, has filed a supplemental brief in reply.

The Solicitor General filed a brief in early July at the request of the Supreme Court which sought to hear the federal government’s perspective on Snyder v. Doe (a pending petition from Michigan seeking to overturn a unanimous Sixth Circuit decision that held much of Michigan’s sex offender registry enhancements unconstitutional in August, 2016).

In view of the Solicitor General’s arguments against granting Michigan’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Schuette’s brief opposing the SG’s recommendation can be summarized as follows:

1) The Sixth Circuit’s decision condemns offense-based registration and therefore implicates the federal SORNA and other state SORAs in the following ways:

  • First, the Sixth Circuit concluded that offense based registration is irrational.
  • Second, the Sixth Circuit concluded that residential restrictions are overbroad and irrational.
  • Third, the Sixth Circuit thought that frequent inperson reporting is irrational.

Here, Michigan is suggesting that the Solicitor General’s recommendation is based upon a flawed appreciation of the Sixth Circuit’s suppositions about offense-based registration requirements which are presumed in both the state SORA and federal SORNA statutes.

2) The deep jurisprudential splits on SORA laws are not attributable to case-specific differences because:

  • The splits among the lower courts are not attributable to statutory differences.
  • Judicial disagreement over legislative facts does not erase the conflicts.

Here, Michigan is claiming that opposing outcomes in federal district courts are not case-specific but are actually interpretations of constitutional law that are substantively opposite on similar grounds. In simple terms, there are (in Michigan’s opinion) real differences of opinion about what is and what isn’t constitutional regarding SORA laws. Those differences need to be resolved and Michigan’s petition provides the Court with a suitable opportunity to do that (again, Michigan’s opinion).

3) The federal government declines to say that Michigan’s federal funding is not at risk.

Here, Michigan is essentially restating its previous arguments in support of the petition while alleging, inter alia, that the SG’s amicus brief skirts the state’s concerns about how the Sixth Circuit’s ruling will impact Michigan’s compliance with federal SORNA requirements:

The federal government notably declines to say that Michigan’s federal funding is safe. Instead, it hedges, saying that it “may well be the case” that Michigan can continue to receive federal funds, that Michigan “may” be able to “reenact in modified form a subset of the requirements” held punitive and enforce them retroactively, that elimination of Michigan-unique SORA features “may” be sufficient to eliminate the Sixth Circuit’s concerns, and—tellingly—that “even if the State chooses not to” (cannot?) reinstate “the retroactive application of the few relevant features in SORA that are required by SORNA,” Michigan would “not necessarily” lose federal funding.

It’s important to keep proper perspective in mind when attempting to discern the legal ramblings of attorneys about complex constitutional questions. But that’s only part of the issue when those questions are filtered through the Court’s petition process. In reading Michigan’s most recent brief, one might get the mistaken impression that Michigan is on the other side of the key questions presented. But that certainly is not the case. Michigan is merely attempting to attract the Court’s attention in the hope of getting its petition granted in an effort to overturn the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

So here’s the lay of the land: Michigan wants the petition granted because it expects the high Court to overturn the outcome below. Does’ attorneys do NOT want the petition granted because, simply put, they won. The federal government, represented at this juncture by the Solicitor General, does not want the petition granted because it believes that the Sixth Circuit arrived at its decision using the correct application of constitutional principles and because it does not believe that the outcome causes any conflict between state SORA and federal SORNA requirements.

The petition is scheduled for conference on September 25, 2017.

This topic contains 31 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  DW 1 day, 5 hours ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #19214 Reply

    Bobby

    This question is for Mr. Robin,

    I am from Michigan and was wondering if you could please explain to me in laymen’s terms WHY we here in Michigan still have to register and give up all our private info still, even though both the 6th Circuit and SCOTUS. turned down Michigan’s stay, so if that is the case why are we still told we have to comply until a final decision is med by SCOTUS. I hope I explained my question clear enough. Thank you in advance for your reply.

    • #19268 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      Bobby,

      I don’t know the answer to your question. But I am attempting to find out. When I receive a sensible response, I’ll get back to you here. Thanks!

  • #18875 Reply

    Jeremy Heady

    While I do agree somewhat with Robin that the Supreme court is more likely to take the case if they feel it could be overturned, I still do not believe it is the rule. I believe this is one of those cases for the following reasons:

    1. The sixth circuit, Pennsylvania, and a number of other courts have declared different provisions of SORNA as ex post facto punishment, yet in many cases, they don’t necessarily agree on exactly what is punishment (residency restrictions, lack of due process, internet exposure, offense based criteria, frequency of in-person reporting, etc.)

    2. Pennsylvania’s decision effectively declared AWA, a federal law, unconstitutional.

    3. California is currently facing legislative battles on residency restrictions.

    There are really two sides to this coin. On one hand, if the Supreme court denies cert to Michigan or Pennsylvania, then those decisions stand as precedent. This would mean that AWA is obsolete and the provisions in those decisions declared ex post facto would become the law of the land. While that sounds like exactly what we want, I would argue for cert for the purpose of clarification.

    Since both of those decisions, and many others, seem to only affect the individual states’ regimes, it would be beneficial to us to have the Supreme court clarify what is and is not ex post facto punishment. Although it’s unlikely considering the court usually sticks to the specifics of a case, this also gives them an opportunity to clarify other problems with the registry, such as:

    1. Internet exposure of registrants. Most of you can probably relate to this, but internet exposure of residents causes employers to consistently violate the FCRA. Background checks are covered under the FCRA and the employer must notify you prior to performing one. They do not notify you when they do a search of your name online though (which I argue is a background check in itself). This is used by many employers to weed out candidates prior to the official background check. The use of illegally obtained internet search results in weeding out a candidate violates the FCRA and is disproportionately used against registrants. This may require its own case (I have yet to see this brought up in a court) to be brought after the other issues are dealt with though.

    2. Residency restrictions. California and Florida are the biggest culprits of abusing this supposed tool. These states and a few others (Minnesota comes to mind too) are facing many legislative battles that could be resolved by the Supreme court although, again, this may require another case specifically challenging it. This really needs a federal decision because this needs to be treated as a federal problem. As many articles and commentators have noted, there is no evidence these restrictions are effective or necessary. The only reason they exist is because each jurisdiction doesn’t want to be the safe zone for sex offenders. It’s a race to see who can be more strict so their SO population thins out. If it’s only solved locally or within one state, that jurisdiction will complain that SOs will be more attracted to their jurisdiction.

    3. Liberty bans. While this is not something my state does (although I think nearby local jurisdictions may), many still do. In many states and local jurisdictions, just being near a park can land an SO in jail for “loitering”. In Packingham, the court used the word “parks” when describing free speech. These laws are in conflict with that decision.

    4. Civil commitment. I don’t know the exact case name, but recently in Kansas, this problem was declared constitutional in direct conflict with the Michigan and Pennsylvania decisions. This is a gross violation of liberty and due process by effectively extending a person’s sentence to civil commitment by saying it’s a medical treatment. Insane asylums were outlawed years ago and that’s what these are basically, yet there’s little to no actual medical treatment provided. They are treated like prisoners.

    5. GPS devices. While I don’t argue against restrictions for parolees (parole is a punishment), this practice has gone way beyond that by forcing it on registrants not on supervision. This is a gross violation of liberty and privacy.

    I bring up these points because these are all violations of ex post facto, but different courts declare different things as punishment. Having the court consolidate the multiple cases in its next session with an hour or longer oral argument could provide us with the landmark decision we’ve been wanting for a long time. Yes, there is the possibility they would overturn one or more of these laws, but I am confident that after Packingham that the justices are starting to realize the unconstitutionality of these schemes. It’s time we let them declare it.

  • #17760 Reply

    TXSO4Life

    Can you imagine what the consequences and future STATES and FED legislation would be for registrants in the event that SCOTUS granted Michigan request and REVERSE the 6th circuit (Snyder) opinion. Ever since SCOTUS gave it a green light for Smith v. Doe, sex offender laws have transformed into a de factor punishment disguises in “CIVIL” regulations. If SCOTUS once again gives a GREEN LIGHT to the SNYDER case as they did in SMITH case, I can foresee many more added restrictions, perhaps there will be GPS attached, more frequent home searches, more presence restrictions, SEX OFFENDER letters on all driver licenses in all states, added registration fees in more states, more frequents home visit checks, restrictions on association with opposite genders, more employment restrictions…and the list goes on in the form of CIVIL laws.

    • #17839 Reply

      Smith

      Again, even though SCOTUS Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the court on the recent social media ruling, the fact that he is the SAME ATTORNEY who argued BEFORE the Supreme Court in 2003 to uphold sex offender registration and notifcation is very concerning. Should SCOTUS agree to hear Michigan AG’s Writ, Roberts should do the right thing and recuse himself…then again, he didn’t do the right thing in 2003 when he trampled all over the Constitution, so it’s probably a moot point…otherwise, he would, in effect, have to admit he was wrong in 2003.

      See: https://www.montanaprobono.net/geo/search/download.71936
      (scroll down to the 2003 Alaska case)

      • #17841 Reply

        Robin
        Keymaster

        Personally, I’m not as concerned about Roberts’ participation because he will be constrained by the arguments he made in Smith v. Doe. And if he doesn’t hold to the essentials of that argument, his colleagues on the Court will be quick to point that out to him during oral. Roberts advanced the argument that the AK registry regime was not unconstitutional BECAUSE it did not impose undue burdens upon the people required to register. That was the persuasive, prevailing argument. So, his legal integrity will very likely force him into acknowledge his posture (and his legal arguments) during Smith v. Doe so as to avoid seeming duplicitous. Behind all the regalia of the bench are nine human beings who don’t find it any easier to argue with themselves than the next guy does.

        • #19035 Reply

          Jeremy from Indiana

          I have to agree with you on your assessment of Justice Roberts. When I first discovered that he was the lawyer arguing for Alaska in the Smith decision, I had some concerns as well. It helps to understand the mentality of attorneys though. Attorneys are paid to represent their clients regardless of their personal or political beliefs. As a District Attorney, Roberts’ client was the state of Alaska. His job was to represent the state and he did that effectively in 2003. As a lawyer, he was bound by the letter of the law and his client’s wishes. As a judge, especially a Supreme Court judge, he has a lot more freedom in how he interprets law. For starters, he is no longer bound to a client. He is still bound somewhat by the letter of the law, but his position allows him to change that with a majority opinion. During the challenge to the individual mandate of Obamacare, Roberts was quoted as saying (paraphrased) that it is not the responsibility of the court to question the wisdom of a law, that’s up to the legislature. This quote gives me a bit of hope in future cases challenging the registry.

        • #17934 Reply

          Smith

          I read what you said twice, but could you elaborate a little more…not quite understanding what you’re saying. Thanks.

        • #17951 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          I don’t think Roberts would need to admit he was wrong in 2003. Legally speaking, he was right. There was nothing at all unconstitutional about Alaska making available the record of prior convictions or registering sex offenders. The excesses we primarily fight against have all come AFTER the Smith v. Doe decision. Which, if you have not read that opinion, you really must. It’s the most important case for understanding how we back ourselves out of the more onerous restrictions related to the sex offender registries.

          All I’m saying is that Roberts should just stick with his arguments. That’s good for us.

        • #18539 Reply

          DW

          Robin,

          Respectfully, isn’t the public shaming associated with AK original ruling by SCOTUS unconstitutional if it was not available for consideration at an individual’s original plea-deal? Should they not be afforded full contemplation of any all consequences if they give up the sacrosanct right to a jury trial? You are as brilliant a person as I’ve read in any post. Smith v. Doe was and remains an abomination in my humble opinion as I understand the Bill of Rights. That you find it Constitutionally sound saddens me.

          I can’t imagine anything more offensive to our Federalist doctrine than punishment of any kind applied after the fact under the guise of civil regulations. It has in all ages been a most formidable tool of tyranny to paraphrase our founders. I still think you’re brilliant. Just disagree about Smith v. Doe. Then again, I ain’t sitting on the SCOTUS. God bless.

    • #17828 Reply

      Fred

      They would be giving them a free pass to do anything they want to us. Last year my state enacted a law that says every car at the registrants address must be registered, even if the registrant doesn’t drive it. Say if your brother lives with you, his car has to be registered on the public registry. Failure to do that is a 4 year felony. So with that in mind, if Does v. Snyder gets overturned, I won’t be surprised if they start requiring every member of the household to register just as the registrant is. It would be like North Korea, where the whole family goes to prison of an act by a single family member.

  • #17688 Reply

    Smith

    When SCOTUS took the Alaska & Connecticut cases in 2003, the general consesus among attorneys was that it was ominous, meaning it seemed to be a given that the court would rule against RSO’s and, in fact, they did, but consider the following:

    1) Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, has been opined by many, even members of Congress, as being a ‘strict Constitutionalist’;

    2) Kennedy and Kagan are seemingly leaning against retroactive application;

    3) Former Chief Justice Rehnquist callously and mockingly remarked during the 2003 Alaska and Connecticut arguments that maybe RSO’s “need to be stigmatized”, injecting his own personal views into the decision, but he’s gone;

    4) Remember, in the 2003 ruling, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, offered a couple of useful nuggets:

    “What tips the scale for me is the PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY NORMALLY ACCORDED TO A STATE’S LAW. That presumption gives the State THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT in close cases like this one, and ON THAT BASIS ALONE I concur in the Court’s judgment…The Court’s opinions in both cases FAIL TO DECIDE whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected INTEREST IN LIBERTY. If no liberty interest were implicated, it seems clear that neither statute would raise a colorable constitutional claim. Cf. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976). Proper analysis of both cases should therefore begin with a consideration of the IMPACT OF THE STATUTES ON THE REGISTRANT’S FREEDOM…The statutes impose significant affirmative obligations and a severe stigma on every person to whom they apply…The registration and reporting duties imposed on convicted sex offenders are comparable to the duties imposed on other convicted criminals during periods of supervised release or parole. And there can be no doubt that the “[w]idespread public access,” ante, at 99 (opinion in No. 01-112729), to this personal and constantly updated information has a severe stigmatizing effect. See Brief for the Office of the Public Defender for the State of New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 7-21 (providing examples of threats, assaults, loss of housing, and loss of jobs experienced by sex offenders after their registration information was made widely available). In my judgment, these statutes unquestionably affect a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INTEREST IN LIBERTY. Cf. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971)…It is also clear beyond peradventure that these unique consequences of conviction of a sex offense are punitive. They share three characteristics, which in the aggregate are not present in any civil sanction. The sanctions (1) constitute a severe deprivation of the offender’s LIBERTY…In my opinion, a sanction that (1) is imposed on everyone who commits a criminal offense, (2) is not imposed on anyone else, and (3) severely impairs a person’s LIBERTY is punishment.”

    Justice Stevens kept bringing up the Constitutinally-protected right to “liberty” which, apparently, was not fully before and addressed by the court in the 2003 ruling.

    5) Also, during the 2003 arguments: ‘It’s not the whole truth,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to John G. Roberts Jr., representing Alaska. Justice Ginsburg noted that Alaska’s Internet site that identifies offenders and their whereabouts does not indicate those who have successfully completed rehabilitation programs. ”The public is getting only the bad and not the good,” Justice Ginsburg said. ”Its judgment is being skewed.”

    6) Who would have initially thought SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of RSO’s on a less important matter (as compared to registraton and public notification) such as having access to the Internet and social media, but they did;

    7) The main information the government pushed, and the judges relied upon, in 2003 has since been de-bunked by the extensive research of many, including the very author of that article, and hopefully their voices will be heard this time around:

    From: https://narsol.org/2017/07/district-attorney-to-seek-scotus-review-of-pa-decision/

    ‘In a 2016 article, Arizona State University Law professor Ira Ellman found the current legal argument for high recidivism rates comes from a 1986 Psychology Today article. The article, written by counselor Robert Longo to tout a sex offender treatment program he ran, quipped that up to 80 percent of untreated sex offenders go on to commit new offenses…Figures from Longo’s article have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold previous iterations of sex offender registration laws. Longo has since disavowed the 80 percent figure and publicly opposed sex offender registries. In speaking with The Sentinel in 2016, Longo said the 80 percent figure is inaccurate and a “very high estimate.” He said it was unfortunate that his work has been used to support registries because “those laws did nothing. (Registries) didn’t prevent anything.” He now places recidivism rates at roughly a quarter of his original estimate. “People are going to take anything that works to their advantage, or twist a quote, to make it work to their advantage, and I just think it’s unfortunate,” he said.’

    So, with all that said, here we are, 14 years later since the Alaska and Connecticut cases…would it really be a bad thing this time around if SCOTUS does grant the Michigan AG’s Writ of Certiorari? Is there a possibility, one-and-a-half decades later into this miserably-failed social experiment, that the court has seen or can be shown the light and try to right its wrong…to take a step in the right direction to undo this grave injustice and insult to both the Federal and state constitutions?

    On the flip side of the coin, should SCOTUS grant Michigan AG’s Writ, one has to wonder if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will do the right thing and recuse himself? Many may not know that the current Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the attorney John G. Roberts Jr who argued before the Supreme Court in 2003 on behalf of the State of Alaska, asking the court to uphold the registration and notification requirements, are ONE AND THE SAME!

    See: https://www.montanaprobono.net/geo/search/download.71936

    Though he did join the Court’s unanimous decision a few weeks ago regarding RSO’s and social media, I’m wary he can now adhere to the same Constitution he obliterated when it comes to registration and notification issues, given his strong defense of the whole draconian scheme when he argued before the very court he now heads back in 2003.

    • #17775 Reply

      Tim lawver

      Mathematical equation given Smith outcome.(2003)

      An individual’s liberty < Needs of database(machine)

      Therefore imposed new STATE electronic indenture upon felons, many w\o meaningful process. A few swept in who were not actually guilty of the qualifying offense in the first case. ( my beef!)

      What column

      What was at stake in DOE! All Liberty!

      • #18540 Reply

        DW

        Tim Lawver,

        Amen sir.

  • #17647 Reply

    Bobby

    I have been in regular contact with Ms Aukerman from Michigan’s ACLU for a few years now, since I was convicted way back in 92, when Michigan did not have a registry nor was I told by a judge I had to register. I was put on it unconstitutionally in 95,for 25 years and then it got changed to life, then just in the last few years they even changed my registration date to my convection date of 6/1992 that’s fine because it been 25 years now since june of this year.

    Anyway I was told that (if) WHEN we win, it will effect everyone on the registry in Michigan, Oh, Tenn, and KY as well I believe, but especially Michigan since it is our case. I hope they refuse to hear it, so I can finally get off this stupid thing, but then I hope they take it so that it will have an effect on ALL STATES. As far as Schuette goes he is an idiot along with Snyder and they both have but their feet in their mouths many times, and have both had the door shut in their faces, when it comes to this case and they will have the door shut in their face again, and it will finally be over at least for us here in Michigan.

  • #17592 Reply

    David O’reilly

    Check out this observation. I read the 6th Circuit’s opinion in Snyder “5” times just to make sure I understood it very well. Then, when the MI AG, Mr. Schuette, filed his petition for Certiorari to SCOTUS, I also read it “5” times and the one thing that jumped out at me like a ghost in a haunted house on Halloween was the fact that in his petition, Mr. Schuette never addressed the two main reasons the 6th circuit ruled MI’s SORNA unconstitutional in the first place: 1) MI SORNA is punishment and 2) therefore violate both MI and federal ex post facto prohibitions. The only thing he talked about were no splits among federal circuits on this issue and MI losing its federal shake down, I mean federal grant monies.

  • #17579 Reply

    Darrel Hoffman

    Shitty (oops!!!!) I mean, Schuette will lose this argument and those enhancements will be gone. A unanimous, and very conservative 6th Circuit Court called it what it is-punitive and punishment!!!! Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court agreed and threw theirs out. The US Supreme Court will uphold those findings!!!!

    • #17602 Reply

      DW

      PA DA asking SCOTUS to find PA Constitution in conflict with US Constitution. Anything to usurp their own laws.

  • #17576 Reply

    BB

    I always find it amusing how these people will try anything to protect the system. Even if they or their own loved ones can be potentially subject to the same punishments and their rights violated by that same system as well.

    • #17607 Reply

      W.C.

      The thing is the Solicitor General defends these draconian, unconstitutional, inhumane laws because they know if one of their own gets into trouble of this nature, they can pull enough strings to help their loved ones avoid the repercussions of these laws. There’s a set of laws for them and another set for the rest of us. Look at the Senate and the healthcare they get on our dime and then look at the garbage they try to pawn off on us that ain’t worth the paper the policy’s printed on!

  • #17558 Reply

    DW

    It is a sad state of affairs when “odds in Vegas” are better than the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Robin, your answers are always spot-on, and I wish I had your depth of knowledge pertaining to the ins and outs of our judicial system. The Bill of Rights seem pretty straightforward when I read them.

    What I find tragic is that SCOTUS has allowed semantics to get in the way of what clearly amounts to ex-post-facto punishment as it is described in the Bill of Rights. I can’t remember the Sixth Court’s exact quote, but it seemed pretty spot on; to paraphrase as best I can, allowing the government to enact legislation after the fact under the guise of civil regulation has throughout history been a most favored instrument of tyranny.

    The same way in which President Obama lied through his teeth about the ACA in saying “It’s not a tax; it’s a penalty” and then Justice Stevens said, “It is a tax, not a penalty; therefore it is constitutional.”

    I trust Robin’s judgement in this. Sadly, the fact that he is right breaks my heart for all Americans.

  • #17567 Reply

    David

    Thank you for the clear and concise summary of MI’s supplementary brief. Well-written. And MI’s arguments are interesting, not least the final one re: losing federal $$$.

  • #17554 Reply

    Roy

    In plain English is this move positive or negative for the cause? In which direction is the supreme court leaning based on what we now know?

    • #17556 Reply

      Robin
      Keymaster

      In plain English, who knows? Odds are better in Las Vegas. As I’ve said before, it is NOT in the best interest of our “peeps” for the Supreme Court to grant the petition (which, in plain English, means to take the case).

      • #19445 Reply

        DW

        Question folks,

        If one’s conviction date for a single act occurred in 1992, was in a state other than one under the Sixth District’s purview and SCOTUS refuses to hear Snyder v. Does, does that mean that any of the states covered by the Sixth are barred from including me and those similarly situated on their registries?

        Respectfully,
        DW

      • #17636 Reply

        Roy

        Thank you for offering clarity. I reside in Kentucky, to my knowledge nothing has been settled for my state as a member of Sixth Circuit. Would I be correct in saying nothing has yet changed? I ask because Todd states, “at this point ‘we’ have won.” I consider a win settled. Thank you in advance for your response.

        • #17639 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          Things are presently in a state of limbo pending the Supreme Court’s decision about whether or not to grant Michigan’s petition. Until then, nothing is going to move. If the Court grants cert, things will remain in limbo until the Court disposes of the case. If the Court denies cert, the case will return below (to the District Court where it all began) for that Judge to proceed in accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. I would expect that attorneys in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio would then make haste to assess the weaknesses of those states’ registration schemes in view of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (I’m certain this is already occurring, but we’re hearing nothing about it).

          If any of you live in a state within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction, you might consider contacting your state’s ACLU to find out what is going on, if anything, to review and assess legal options consequent to the final outcome once we can be sure what it is. If you learn anything, please let us know!

        • #17645 Reply

          Fred

          The thing is,the Sixth Circuit ordered the district court where all this originated to issue a new ruling in par with their opinion on this case back in August 2016 (ONE YEAR AGO), then the Supreme Court denied Michigan’s request for a stay in November 2016. This new ruling from the district court should had been issued by now.

      • #17578 Reply

        Todd

        While I agree that generally it is better for “us” that the US Supreme Court NOT hear the case. After all, at this point “we” have won. However, unless the US Supreme Court hears the case, the favorable ruling will only apply to Michigan residents, not the rest of “us” in the other 49 states.

        • #17585 Reply

          Robin
          Keymaster

          The Sixth Circuit opinion will be law in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It affects more than Michigan.

        • #17606 Reply

          Bill

          If the U.S. Supreme court does not grant review; it will impact those 4 states directly, and affects all the courts indirectly. Meaning, all court cases will point to the 6th circuit opinion and how the U.S. Supreme court handled that opinion. When I went into verify my address this month in Michigan I was talking with the civil servant who was waiting on me; that person tried to tell me the ruling would only affect those people involved in the case. That might have been true if the federal appeals court had not mentioned Michigan’s SOR as being unconstitutional; and then addressed SORNA as a whole(Which I did not expect). Those justices seemed actually upset with how all the states have abused SORNA’s original intention. Not to mention U.S. Supreme court justice Elena Kagan’s words when she rejected Michigan’s request for an emergency stay of the ruling. It may have been a political error on Mr. Shuette’s part to say the U.S. Solicitor General’s opinion was unpersuasive. Just my opinion.

Reply To: Michigan files supplemental brief replying to solicitor general
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">