When a state supreme court rules in favor of people on the sex offense registry, many assume the fight is over. But is it? On a recent episode of Registry Matters, Larry answered a harsh listener comment and explained why he believes the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision may not be the final word.
This article walks through the main arguments, the history behind them, and what they could mean for people affected by registry laws.
A Listener Pushes Back
The segment began with a comment from a listener named Jerry. Jerry called Larry a detriment to the cause of NARSOL, the organization that works to end public registries. He also criticized Larry’s view of Michigan’s recent decision in People v. Eddie Lee Smith.
Larry first cleared up a misunderstanding. Registry Matters is an independent production. It promotes NARSOL and gives the group credit, but it does not answer to it. Every episode begins with a disclaimer saying so.
What the Michigan Rulings Say
The Michigan Supreme Court previously held, in People v. Betts, that the 2011 amendments to the registry act are punishment and violate ex post facto protections. That means they cannot be applied to people whose offenses came before July 1, 2011.
Larry says he never disputed that. His point is about what happens next.
Separation of Powers: The Core Argument
Larry’s central claim is simple. No court can stop a legislature from passing a new law. Courts can review laws after they pass, but they cannot forbid lawmakers from legislating, and they cannot force them to legislate either.
This is the separation of powers. The founders built a system so no branch could run over another. A bill passes, the executive signs it, and a court can step in only if someone files a challenge and has a legal basis.
Why “Facially Unconstitutional” Matters
A law is facially unconstitutional when there is no set of circumstances in which it would be allowed. Larry stresses that registration itself has never been declared that way. Courts have instead struck down specific schemes “as applied.” That means a new law can be challenged, but the challenger cannot simply point to the old ruling and win.
Lessons from Indiana and Michigan’s Past
Larry points to Indiana. After the Wallace decision in 2009, many people left the registry. Later, he says, many were put back on after new laws were passed.
He also recalls Doe v. Snyder. A federal court gave Michigan’s legislature time to write a new law, but lawmakers acted only when a date was set for the registry to go dark. Larry says that matched what he predicted.
Why Federal Appeal Wasn’t an Option
Jerry noted that the state did not appeal to the federal courts. Larry explains why: the state supreme court is the highest authority on its own constitution. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and generally step in only when the U.S. Constitution is at issue.
Pressure Is Coming
Larry expects growing pressure from the public, police, and victim advocates. He also points to people moving to Michigan to take advantage of the ruling. More arrivals, he argues, will draw attention and push lawmakers toward a new registry.
He adds that states seldom give up. They file appeals, seek review, and use every delay tactic. He cites a Butts County, Georgia sign case as an example of how funding and politics can end a fight.
Should Advocates Help Write the Law?
Jerry called the idea of working with legislators absurd. Larry disagrees. He asks which is better: letting police and victim advocates write the law alone, or having advocates help craft a constitutional version. In his view, ignoring the process previously led to another unconstitutional law, the 2021 act.
His ideal registry would require a person to register and update their information online, with no internet publication and no limits on where to live or work.
Why Courts Can’t End Everything
Larry says a judge cannot just “wave a wand” and end registration. Ending public registration might be possible, but it would take strong evidence, such as data showing lost jobs and housing. Cases that rely only on summary judgment often lack that record.
Registration Comparisons
Andy and Larry compared the registry to voter registration and draft registration. Voter lists are not meant to punish. Draft registration carries penalties but not punitive intent. The registry, Larry says, differs because of the disabilities and restraints that come with it.
Costs and Outlook
Larry estimates litigation has cost Michigan between $5 and $10 million, including fee awards. Drafting a constitutional bill might cost around $25,000. Even so, he doubts the public will see it that way, and he does not expect the registry to disappear soon.
Key Takeaways
- A court win does not stop lawmakers from writing a new law.
- New laws can still be challenged, but each case needs strong evidence.
- People planning to relocate should prepare for possible changes.
Conclusion
The debate shows a real split among advocates: celebrate the win, or prepare for the next round. Larry chooses preparation. Whether or not Michigan acts, his message is to stay informed and vigilant.