Doe A v. Whitmer, 2:22-cv-10209

Plaintiffs are a class challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s 2021 Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA 2021), primarily its retroactive reporting requirements and treatment of people with out-of-state convictions.
In September 2024, the Court granted summary judgment to both parties on different claims, holding, among other things, that SORA 2021’s retroactive provisions violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and that its treatment of out-of-state offenders violates due process and equal protection.
After failed attempts to agree on remedies, judgment was entered (and later amended) in March and April 2025.
Defendants (including Governor Whitmer) moved to stay the judgment pending appeal, arguing risk of irreparable harm, confusion, and harm to public safety.
The Court evaluates the motion for stay pending appeal under a four-factor test: likelihood of success, irreparable injury to movant, risk of harm to others, and public interest.
The Court denies the motion to stay, finding all factors disfavor a stay and emphasizing the strong public interest in remedying constitutional violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive increase of reporting/registration	SORA 2021’s retroactive provisions are punitive and violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.	Willman controls; SORA 2021 is not punitive under federal or state precedents.	Retroactive provisions are unconstitutional under Ex Post Facto Clause.
Treatment of out-of-state convictions	SORA 2021 violates due process and equal protection by treating non-Michigan offenses more harshly.	Treatment justified by Full Faith and Credit Clause; state has discretion.	Violates due process and equal protection; no rational basis shown.
Irreparable injury to state from injunction	No specific injury; court provided 90-day stay for legislative action; enforcement of unconstitutional law harms public.	Any injunction of a state statute is irreparable harm to sovereignty.	No irreparable injury; general argument insufficient.
Public harm from removing registrants	Minimal, as most are low recidivism risk; other means for public to access criminal records exist.	Registry protects public; loss of information is harmful.	Harm overstated; public interest favors remedying constitutional harm.

Willman v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 972 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2020) (held federal SORNA not ex post facto violation, relied on by Michigan)
Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognized scant evidence that Michigan registry reduces recidivism)
Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (outlined heightened standard for likelihood of success for post-judgment stay)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (articulated the four-factor stay pending appeal test)
Dahl v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Michigan Univ., 15 F.4th 728 (6th Cir. 2021) (public interest always favors preventing constitutional violations)