Michigan sex offender registry halved after Supreme Court ruling on retroactive law
Over 20,000 people removed from Michigan's sex offender registry after the state Supreme Court ruled retroactive registration rules unconstitutional.
Michigan removes over 20,000 from sex offender registry after Supreme Court ruling
Michigan State Police have removed more than 20,000 people from the state's sex offender registry following a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court on 9 September 2026, cutting the list by nearly half, clickondetroit.com reports.
The court determined that amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act passed in 2011 and 2021 — introducing stricter reporting requirements, tier classifications and extended lifetime registration — could not be applied retroactively to offenders whose crimes occurred before 1 July 2011. Under constitutional law, a state cannot lengthen or intensify a person's punishment after sentencing has already taken place, a principle known as the prohibition on ex post facto laws.
At the time of the order, approximately 43,000 offenders were actively registered or required to be registered. By 11 September, more than 20,000 had been removed. State police say the number may continue to change as the review process continues.
Offenders whose crimes occurred on or after 1 July 2011 remain subject to all registry requirements.
Case originated with Kent County conviction
The ruling stems from a case involving Eddie Lee Smith. In 2010, Smith pleaded no contest in Kent County to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison and was granted parole in 2024.
When the 2011 amendments took effect, Smith was placed in Tier III under the new classification system, requiring lifetime registration. His lawyers argued that the requirements had been enacted after his offence was committed and therefore constituted unconstitutional punishment imposed after the fact. The Supreme Court agreed.
ACLU: registry was one of the largest in the country
Miriam Aukerman, director of strategic litigation for the ACLU, said the ruling was consistent with a broader line of decisions — both at state and federal level — finding aspects of Michigan's registry unconstitutional.
"What happened here is that in 2011, the legislature changed the law really dramatically and essentially put people retroactively sort of on lifetime probation, you might say. They changed the rules of the game, and what the court said is you can't do that. It's a pretty basic constitutional principle," Aukerman said.
She described Michigan's registry as one of the largest in the country, and argued it had operated without individual consideration of any registrant's circumstances. Aukerman further contended the registry was not only ineffective but counterproductive, making it harder for former offenders to find employment and housing.
"This decision is taking a failed, counterproductive system and making it a little bit less failed," she said.
State police: role limited to enforcement
Michigan State Police emphasised that they had no part in altering the law and were acting solely to implement the court's order.
"The MSP did not make this change to the law. However, the department maintains the database, is required to comply with the Court's order and is taking the necessary steps to implement the ruling," said Col. James F. Grady II, director of the Michigan State Police. "Any concerns about or efforts to change the law should be directed to the state Legislature."
Critics have raised public safety concerns, arguing that the removals leave parents without reliable information about who lives near their children. State police are directing those concerns to state lawmakers.
The ruling does not overturn any conviction. It affects only who is required to remain listed on the public registry. Anyone who believes an error has been made — regarding an offender who should remain registered for offences committed on or after 1 July 2011 — is asked to contact the Sex Offender Registry Unit or the local law enforcement agency at the offender's registered address.
Source: Google News MT — Crime (en)