M.S. Willman v. U.S. Attorney General
972 F.3d 819
6th Cir.2020Background:
- In 1993 M.S. Willman was convicted under Michigan law for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct (sexual penetration), served ten years, and initially registered under Michigan’s SORA.
- Congress enacted SORNA in 2006 to nationalize sex-offender registration and to criminalize failure to register under federal law.
- Willman sued in 2019 seeking a declaration that SORNA is unconstitutional; Michigan later entered a stipulated order removing Willman from the state registry and dismissing state defendants based on Does #1–5 v. Snyder.
- The federal defendant (U.S. Attorney General) moved to dismiss, arguing SORNA obligations remain unaffected by the state order; the district court granted the motion and dismissed Willman’s federal claims.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit held SORNA’s registration duties apply to anyone convicted of a qualifying sex offense, irrespective of whether state law currently requires registration, and rejected all of Willman’s constitutional challenges.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA applies when state law no longer requires registration | Willman: SORNA applies only if the jurisdiction requires state registration; Michigan removed him, so SORNA does not apply | Gov: SORNA defines "sex offender" by conviction; federal duty attaches independent of state obligations | SORNA applies: duty to register imposed on those convicted of qualifying offenses, regardless of state registration status |
| Availability of affirmative defense when state refuses registration | Willman: absurd result if defense exists only after he attempts to register and state declines | Gov: SORNA provides an affirmative defense for uncontrollable circumstances, and it applies if a state will not accept registration | Court: Not absurd; affirmative defense covers scenarios where state prevents registration |
| Ex Post Facto / Eighth Amendment (punishment) | Willman: SORNA is punitive / retroactive | Gov: Sixth Circuit precedent treats SORNA as non-punitive for Ex Post Facto and Eighth Amendment purposes | Rejected: Ex Post Facto and Eighth Amendment claims are not facially plausible under controlling precedent |
| Privacy / Travel / Fourth Amendment / Vagueness / Overbreadth | Willman: public disclosure, travel restrictions, unreasonable seizure, vagueness, overbreadth | Gov: No general constitutional right to nondisclosure; SORNA does not burden travel or effect a seizure; statute gives fair notice; overbreadth not shown | Rejected: Claims are facially implausible or waived (double jeopardy waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Paul, [citation="718 F. App'x 360"] (6th Cir. 2017) (SORNA duties independent of state registration requirements)
- United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012) (SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- United States v. Stock, 685 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (SORNA obligations are imposed on sex offenders, not on states)
- Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) (state SORA held ex post facto; led to stipulated state order removing Willman from registry)
- Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016) (describing SORNA’s goal to uniformize registration and criminalize failure to register)
- Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 1999) (state registry laws are not punishment for Eighth Amendment purposes)
- United States v. Del Valle-Cruz, 785 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2015) (duty to register under SORNA triggered by conviction, not by state registration duty)