Michigan’s emergency request for stay denied by Supreme Court

LANSING, MICH. – A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected Michigan’s request to halt a lower court decision that found the state unconstitutionally put additional restrictions on sex offenders long after their convictions.

Justice Elena Kagan denied Tuesday the emergency appeal for a stay.

In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said changes to Michigan law in 2006 and 2011, which included retroactively restricting sex offenders’ movements near schools, penalize offenders as “moral lepers.”

The appeals court denied Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s request to block the decision during appeal. So did Kagan.

Schuette’s office couldn’t immediately be reached to comment.

Michigan has the country’s fourth-largest sex offender list, with more than 42,000 registrants.

Michigan prohibits all registrants from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of school property.

Source: Associated Press, WZZM

someone outside of NARSOL

Written by 

Occasionally we will share articles that have been published elsewhere. This is a common practice as long as only a portion of the piece is shared; a full piece is very occasionally shared with permission. In either case, the author's name and the place of original publication are displayed prominently and with links.

12 Thoughts to “Michigan’s emergency request for stay denied by Supreme Court”

  1. FredFred

    I read about this yesterday and I am a little confused. I thought the District Court the case originated from had to issue a new ruling despite the state filing a petition to the Supreme Court. The District Court does not have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide if they will hear it, was my understanding.

    Can you tell us how long the Supreme typically takes to decide if they will grant a writ of certiorari? I had been googling this, but have had no luck.

    1. Avatarrwvnral

      The question before the Court here was “Will you grant a stay WHILE our petition is pending?” Justice Kegan said no. That means that the lower court in Michigan can proceed with its determinations in accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. It is also a fairly good sign (not an absolute assurance!) that there are not the requisite votes to grant cert on the petition itself. As I’ve stated before, the Court does not like to step into moving waters unless there is a critical threat to the very integrity of our democracy. Certainly that is not the case here.

    2. AvatarMike

      Hi RWVNRAL,

      What exactly does the following mean or suggest;

      A Schuette spokeswoman said the office was reviewing the decision. The Michigan State Police, which maintains the list, issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies on Oct. 14 notifying them of the earlier appellate opinion.

      “We have instructed law enforcement officers to consult with their prosecutor’s office prior to taking any enforcement action related to the 2006 and 2011 amendments to Michigan’s” Sex Offenders Registration Act, agency spokeswoman Shanon Banner said.


    3. Avatarrwvnral

      What does it mean? Don’t know. What does it suggest? They are circling their wagons and preparing to be as obstructionist as they can. The AG’s office has communicated its strategy directly to the District Attorneys. What is the strategy? Watch and see.

    4. AvatarMike

      Another question,

      Would the strategy from AG’s office possibly involve keeping quiet
      allowing (if it actually applies to this case) The provisions of MCL
      600.6431 (3) statutory notice?

      If so would it not be wise for offenders that this 6th court of appeals
      on August 26th affects, to file a Tort of claim To ensure removal from registry once it is possibly reheard, “before” changes can be hammered out to correct the issues??? .

  2. FredFred

    Whoops I totally misread this. I didn’t think they would decide that fast. Wow good news.

  3. AvatarMike

    I Read in the news also that Michigan state police sent notices out to law enforcement regarding the decision back a couple weeks ago. They are even admitting the system
    is broken.

    Lets see if they follow up on it.

    Your thoughts?

  4. AvatarLarry

    I am new to this and am looking for some info.

    I pled no contest to a charge in 1985 when I was 17 after three years it was removed from my record. Thirty later I was convicted of embezzling now I’m required to register.

    My understanding is a lower court has ruled that I shouldn’t be punished 32 yrs after the fact. And from this article it sounds like they are suggesting not to charge people until a higher court rules.

    I’m on parole and not allowed to stay in our house because the property is just on the edge of 1000ft. So now my wife and I are forced to sell our house but we’re not sure if there is a possibility that a court my rule that I don’t have to follow these restrictions.

    Is there a chance that I won’t have to follow the resident restrictions? Is there a idea of a timeline?


    1. AvatarJohn W

      Hey Larry, I hate to tell you this but your question is almost impossible to answer. Every state, county, municipality, city, town, village and even neighborhood co-operatives have their own set of rules and regulations.

      For example, I live in a county that has 23 towns and cities. When I report every 90 days, it is only because Federal Law mandates it. But it forces me to adhere to State Statutes which are enforced by the CLEO who happens to be the county police. The city I live in has their own set of ordinances. I also live 25 miles from where I work, which is in a different county from where I live. I drive through 3 cities in the county that I live and 6 other municipalities in the county that I work. Each one has their own set of rules and regulations concerning RSO’s. I have to keep in mind that NO regulation supersedes any other law, therefore I am compelled to adhere to every one of the laws in accordance to where I am at the moment. (Definitely a system that dooms RSO’s to fail)

      You have the added responsibility of having to answer to a PO. Most of us have been there and as we all know, when they say “jump”, you’re not to ask, “how high?”. You just need to start jumping. They may be wrong in what they tell you, but it’s better to appeal it from your house than it would be from behind bars.

      Sounds like you need an attorney. Good luck! I never found one in 20 years that would advise me on the “Dos and Don’ts” for RSO’s. They just tell me to ask the police. Yeah! Right! Like I’m going to ask a cop if I’m breaking the law. I’m in this mess now because I asked a cop a question 35 years ago!!!

  5. You know the more I think about RSOL the more I think that its in a good position. Now you all are talking about the Supreme Court and others are talking about each state doing their thing in these laws.

    If you all look at this its mind over matter. My simple involvement into this internet sex sting ordeal seems basic and simple as compared to some things you all are up against. Is any of this fair for a lot on the registry. No its not….

    Now I’m going back to court, if and when I get my papers to do so as explained by my PO. Sure I got 10 yrs. probation…… but what after that?

    Can I say my life is over, can I say the two jobs I had plus a good bank account was dried up. While I can say yes to three of those my life is not over and yes we all will fight and stand up to this as rwvnal and the others on RSOL want to do to make a difference for their loved ones also.

    You all may not like it but political knowledge and government is good but biblical knowledge is a whole lot better. I don’t like to go to court myself but if I was caught drunk driving or some other endangering action than it was my own fault.

    One can’t assume or predict the future of another person and that would be like a double standard effect.

  6. AvatarWilliam

    I have a question for the Michigan decision. The decision that the 2006 and 2011 ammendment constitutes punishment and can no longer be enforced…does that mean I don’t have to verify anymore(conviction 1991) or does it also mean I can be removed from the registry?

  7. AvatarMichael

    Well its been 6 months since the ruling on this….what has transpired since? I have been checking periodically and haven’t seen or heard anything.

Comments are closed.