People v. Shaver — A Victory for Those Convicted Under Michigan’s Unconstitutional Registry Law

By Savannah . . . In May 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an important decision in People v. Shaver, holding that its landmark 2021 decision in People v. Betts applies retroactively.

People who were convicted years ago for violating Michigan’s

unconstitutional registration law may now have an opportunity to have those convictions set aside.

The case arose from the experience of Gary Shaver, whose underlying offense occurred in 2004. At that time, Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) required registrants to report address changes within ten days. But over the years, the legislature dramatically expanded the law. By 2011, registrants faced far more burdensome requirements, including shorter reporting deadlines, in-person reporting, internet identifier disclosure, a tier classification system, and numerous additional restrictions.

In 2015, Shaver updated his address before moving into a new home. When the move unexpectedly fell through, his registered address remained incorrect for nineteen days. Although he had tried to comply, he was prosecuted under the much harsher 2011 version of SORA and ultimately convicted of failing to register.

Everything changed in 2021, when the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Betts. After examining the 2011 version of SORA in its entirety, the Betts court concluded that SORA was no longer merely a civil regulatory system. Instead, the law had become so punitive in its effects that applying it to people whose offenses occurred before the 2011 amendments violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. In other words, the state could not retroactively impose these new, harsher registration requirements on people whose crimes had been committed years earlier.

But one major question remained unanswered: What about people whose failure to register or disclose information convictions had already become final before Betts was decided?

That was the question presented in Shaver.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that Betts announced a new substantive constitutional rule, not merely a procedural one. Because substantive constitutional rules apply retroactively, people who had already been convicted under the unconstitutional 2011 SORA may seek relief through post-conviction proceedings.

The distinction between “substantive” and “procedural” may sound like legal jargon, but it carries enormous consequences. Procedural rules generally affect how courts conduct trials. Substantive rules, by contrast, limit the government’s power to punish certain conduct or certain people. The Michigan Supreme Court explained that Betts falls into the second category because it removes the state’s authority to punish pre-2011 registrants under the unconstitutional 2011 version of SORA.

The decision is significant for reasons beyond Michigan. Across the country, legislatures have repeatedly expanded registration laws years after people completed their criminal sentences. Courts have often struggled with the question of when those changes become punishment rather than regulation. Shaver reinforces an important constitutional principle: when a law crosses the line into punishment, the government cannot retroactively impose it on people whose offenses occurred before the law existed. Just as importantly, the decision recognizes that constitutional rights are meaningful only if they can be enforced by people whose convictions are already final.

For registrants and advocates, Shaver is a reminder that major constitutional victories do not end with the first favorable decision. Sometimes a second case is needed to ensure those victories reach the people they were meant to protect. In Michigan, Shaver does exactly that, opening the door for individuals convicted under the unconstitutional 2011 SORA to seek the relief that Betts promised.

Written by NARSOL

This post was written by someone, or multiple people, within NARSOL.