Legal challenges to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act are moving on several tracks at once. In the most significant SORNA lawsuit update of 2026, a California federal judge permanently blocked the Department of Justice from enforcing key SORNA provisions against state residents, a long-running Michigan class action is set for oral argument in the Sixth Circuit on July 21, 2026, and a 2025 executive order is pushing non-compliant states to fall in line by conditioning federal grants on SORNA implementation.
California Court Permanently Blocks a Key DOJ Registration Rule
On April 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued a permanent injunction in John Doe v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of several pseudonymous plaintiffs and the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws.1Pacific Legal Foundation. Marine Veteran Fights Unconstitutional Registry Rule The order bars the federal government from prosecuting California residents under SORNA for failing to register when California law does not require registration or does not collect the specific information the federal rule demands.2Reason. Federal Judge Delivers Due Process Win Against DOJ Registry Overreach
The rule at issue was finalized by the DOJ in December 2021. It required individuals to comply with federal SORNA registration obligations even if their state no longer required them to register, for instance because their convictions had been expunged under California law.3Federal Register. Registration Requirements Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act A person who failed to register faced up to ten years in federal prison, and the burden fell on the accused at trial to prove that compliance was impossible.2Reason. Federal Judge Delivers Due Process Win Against DOJ Registry Overreach
Judge Bernal held that framework violated the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, ruling the government cannot presume guilt and force defendants to prove they could not comply. At the preliminary injunction stage, the court also found that requiring registrants to disclose internet usernames likely violated the First Amendment by chilling anonymous online speech. The court called the DOJ’s authority to define registration requirements “significant, even disturbing” on separation-of-powers grounds, but said Ninth Circuit precedent prevented it from striking the rule on that basis.4Pacific Legal Foundation. California Court Halts SORNA Rule That Violates Due Process, First Amendment
The permanent injunction is limited to California. During the earlier preliminary phase, however, the court suggested the rule “could be vacated nationwide in the judge’s final decision.”4Pacific Legal Foundation. California Court Halts SORNA Rule That Violates Due Process, First Amendment Whether the DOJ will appeal is not yet known.
Michigan’s Does III Heads to Oral Argument in July 2026
The longest-running SORNA-related litigation is playing out in Michigan. Does v. Whitmer, commonly called Does III, is an ACLU class action in the Eastern District of Michigan challenging the version of Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act that took effect in March 2021.5ACLU of Michigan. What You Need to Know About Does III
The district court issued a final judgment on March 26, 2025 that split the ruling. The court held that provisions of SORA 2021 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied retroactively to people whose offenses predated July 1, 2011, and permanently enjoined enforcement against that subclass. It also struck down the process for requiring people with out-of-state convictions to register on due process and equal protection grounds, and ordered the state to stop requiring registrants to report email addresses and internet identifiers.5ACLU of Michigan. What You Need to Know About Does III On the other side of the ledger, the court rejected challenges to mandatory reporting requirements, the absence of individualized risk review, and unequal opportunities to petition for removal.6Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Doe A v. Whitmer
Both sides appealed. On June 27, 2025, the Sixth Circuit stayed the district court’s rulings on the ex post facto and out-of-state conviction claims while the appeal proceeds. Provisions decided in the plaintiffs’ favor on other counts, including the elimination of internet identifier reporting and the ban on compelled acknowledgment of “understanding” SORA, remain in effect. Mediation through the Sixth Circuit failed after the state withdrew in September 2025. Briefing is complete, five amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs, and oral argument is set for July 21, 2026.5ACLU of Michigan. What You Need to Know About Does III
The appeal will be decided against the backdrop of Does v. Snyder, the Sixth Circuit’s 2016 decision holding that the retroactive application of Michigan’s earlier SORA amendments was unconstitutional punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause. That ruling distinguished Michigan’s law from the Alaska registry the Supreme Court upheld in Smith v. Doe (2003), pointing to geographic exclusion zones and lifetime registration imposed solely by offense, with no individualized assessment.7Justia. Does v. Snyder Snyder is binding precedent in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky.8ACLU of Michigan. Does v. Snyder FAQ
Pennsylvania Rulings Reshape Registry Prosecutions
Pennsylvania’s registration framework has been reworked more than once. After the state supreme court held in Commonwealth v. Muniz (2017) that retroactive SORNA application violated both the federal and state ex post facto clauses, the legislature passed Act 10 of 2018 to create a separate registration scheme (Subchapter I) for people whose offenses predated the original law.9Criminal Legal News. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Announces Commonwealth Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Offender Knew SORNA Registration Obligations The state supreme court later upheld Subchapter I in Commonwealth v. Lacombe, finding it did not constitute criminal punishment and that ex post facto claims against it “necessarily fail.”10Pennsylvania Courts. Commonwealth v. Lacombe
A broader challenge to the main SORNA provisions failed in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, decided May 31, 2024. A four-justice majority, in an opinion by Chief Justice Debra Todd, rejected arguments that SORNA’s presumption of high reoffense risk is an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption and that the scheme amounts to criminal punishment, holding the defendant had not met his burden on either claim.11VLex. Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, 316 A.3d 77 Two justices dissented; Justice Christine Donahue would have held the presumption unconstitutional and Tier III requirements punitive.12PARSOL. PARSOL Decries Supreme Court of PA Decision in Com v. Torsilieri Appeal
The more consequential change for registrants facing prosecution came in Commonwealth v. Roberts, 329 A.3d 1129 (Pa. 2025). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that to convict someone of failing to register, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the defendant failed to register or verify information, but that the defendant knew they were legally required to do so.9Criminal Legal News. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Announces Commonwealth Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Offender Knew SORNA Registration Obligations The court still affirmed Roberts’s conviction because he had signed multiple documents acknowledging his lifetime registration duties.13PARSOL. Courts Update: SCOPA Clarifies Mens Rea Requirements in SORNA Registration Cases Separately, a Pennsylvania trial court ruled in December 2025 that SORNA’s internet identifier provision is “unconstitutionally vague.”14ACSOL. ACSOL Letter to DOGE Requests Elimination of All Funding for SORNA
Executive Order 14321 Ties Federal Grants to SORNA Compliance
Alongside the litigation, the executive branch is pressing states through funding. On July 24, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14321, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.” It directs the Attorney General and the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation to prioritize discretionary grants for jurisdictions that substantially implement SORNA, with particular attention to sex offenders who have no fixed address.15Federal Register. Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets
The pressure matters because many states are not compliant. A Cicero Institute analysis of DOJ data from May 2025 found that nearly half of surveyed states had not implemented required registration durations, reporting frequencies, or offense-based tiering, and ten states did not maintain an online public registry. Non-compliant states could lose tens of millions in federal grants.16Cicero Institute. SORNA Brief
Where the Broader Constitutional Questions Stand
The Department of Justice’s SMART Office published a case law summary in July 2025 mapping how federal courts have handled the recurring constitutional challenges to SORNA.17SMART Office. SORNA Case Law Introduction
- Every federal appellate circuit that has addressed the question has held that SORNA itself does not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause, though some state and federal courts have struck down the retroactive application of individual state registration laws.18SMART Office. Legal Challenges and Issues
- The Supreme Court held in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (2003) that no additional process is due before imposing registration conditions on someone convicted of a sex offense. Due process claims involving classification, public notification, and vagueness remain common.18SMART Office. Legal Challenges and Issues
- In Gundy v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court rejected a nondelegation challenge and upheld SORNA’s grant of authority to the Attorney General to apply registration requirements to people convicted before the law’s passage. The 4-1-3 decision had Justice Alito concurring narrowly and three dissenters arguing the law let the Attorney General “write his own criminal code.”19Supreme Court of the United States. Gundy v. United States20SCOTUSblog. Opinion Analysis: Court Refuses to Resurrect Nondelegation Doctrine
- The 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference, has introduced fresh uncertainty. The SMART Office notes that at least one SORNA case has been vacated in light of that ruling, without identifying the case, and the full impact remains unclear.18SMART Office. Legal Challenges and Issues
A December 2024 federal ruling found Michigan’s sex offender registration laws unconstitutional, and in March 2026 the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a Texas sexual assault statute sweeps more broadly than federal SORNA tier offenses.9Criminal Legal News. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Announces Commonwealth Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Offender Knew SORNA Registration Obligations The foundational Supreme Court precedents upholding the general framework remain in place, but courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize the specifics of how SORNA and its state counterparts operate, from mens rea requirements in prosecutions to internet identifier disclosures.