69 F.4th 300
6th Cir.2023Background:
- Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), enacted 1994 and amended in 2006 and 2011, imposed registration, reporting, and school-zone restrictions and was applied retroactively to earlier convictions.
- Two prior federal suits challenged SORA: Does I (district court found vagueness/First Amendment issues; Sixth Circuit reversed as to retroactivity) and Does II (district court granted class-wide relief finding retroactivity, vagueness, and First Amendment problems; Michigan amended SORA before final judgment and removed the invalidated provisions).
- After those decisions, five named Michigan sex offenders filed a § 1983 class-action for damages against Governor Whitmer, former Governor Snyder, MSP Director Joseph Gaspar, and former MSP Director Kriste Etue, alleging supervisory liability for continued enforcement of invalidated SORA provisions.
- The complaint alleged defendants knew of SORA’s invalidity (pointing to Does I/Does II) but failed to stop subordinates; many factual allegations were non-specific about which officers enforced SORA or who caused particular harms.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on multiple grounds (statute of limitations, sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity issues); the Sixth Circuit affirmed, but on the alternative ground that plaintiffs failed to plead supervisory liability.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded supervisory liability against MSP directors (Etue, Gaspar) | Directors knew of unconstitutional SORA from prior rulings and knowingly acquiesced by not stopping enforcement | Plaintiffs plead only failure to act and cite litigation; no plausible allegations of authorization, cover‑up, or deliberate indifference | Dismissed: allegations failed to plausibly show authorization, knowing acquiescence, or active unconstitutional behavior |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded supervisory liability against governors (Whitmer, Snyder) | Governors have constitutional duty to ensure faithful execution of law and failed to issue directives stopping enforcement | Allegations are too attenuated; governors are far removed and mere failure to act is insufficient | Dismissed: supervisory-liability claim against governors fails as too attenuated and not more than respondeat superior |
| Whether prior litigation (Does I/Does II) put defendants on notice such that supervisory liability is plausible | Prior decisions put defendants on notice of unconstitutional provisions and ongoing violations | Does I limited; Does I on appeal addressed only retroactivity for four plaintiffs; Does II became final only after legislature amended SORA—insufficient to impute knowledge of ongoing violations | Held: those decisions do not plausibly establish knowledge of continuing violations by defendants |
| Whether sovereign immunity / official‑ vs individual‑capacity labeling bars damages | Plaintiffs sued officials in individual capacities for damages | State argued sovereign immunity; court noted complexity but proceeded to merits because defendants raised immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Court resolved case on merits (failure to state claim) and affirmed dismissal without deciding immunity as the primary ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752 (6th Cir. 2021) (standard for supervisory liability: authorization, approval, or knowing acquiescence)
- Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 2016) (examples of pleading knowing acquiescence and supervisory liability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (officials liable only for their own misconduct; plausibility standard)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (distinction between official‑capacity and individual‑capacity suits)
- Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155 (2017) (sovereign immunity and distinctions between suit types)
- Garza v. Lansing Sch. Dist., 972 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability requires more than negligence; deliberate indifference or concealment can suffice)
- Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (appellate decision limiting retroactive application of SORA amendments)
- John Does 1–4 v. Snyder (Does I), 932 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (district‑court rulings on vagueness and First Amendment claims at motion‑to‑dismiss stage)
- Doe v. Snyder (Does II), 449 F. Supp. 3d 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (district court granted class‑wide relief on retroactivity, vagueness, and First Amendment claims)
- Doe v. Snyder, 606 F. Supp. 3d 608 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (interim orders and subsequent legislative amendment of SORA)