Federal trial court in the Eastern District of Tennessee finding that Tennessee's SORA could not be applied retroactively without implicating the Ex Post Facto clause.
Federal trial court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denying Petitioner's heabeas corpus motion to vacate her guilty plea where state of Tennessee required her registration as a sex offender despite federal law not requiring her to do so.
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals opinion vacating the guilty plea of the Petitioner who pled guilty as a juvenile to an offense that did not require registration at the time of his plea, but subsequently required registration.
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting permanent injunction, prohibiting in total the enforcement of any of Michigan's sex offense registration scheme to anyone who had committed their offenses prior to 2011, as well as prohibiting the enforcement of numerous provisions to any persons required to register.
Tennessee Supreme Court decision holding that trial court was without jurisdiction to modify order dismissing indictments for failure to register, and further commented on lack of apparent Due Process protections in Tennessee's statutory scheme.
Michigan Court of Appeals reversing a decision denying parole to an person who was serving a sentence for sex offenses, on the grounds that the parole board did not abuse its discretion and that a treatment completion requirement did not violate state law.
Eastern District of Tennessee federal trial court holding that 2014 amendment to Tennessee's SORA violated the Ex Post Facto clause.
Kentucky Supreme Court opinion finding that failure to advise as to sex offense registration in the context of a guilty plea constitutes deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment.
Conviction for federal failure to register affirmed where Defendant-Appellant was not required to register as a sex offender under Tennessee state law, traveled internationally, then continued to not register on his return.
6th Circuit Opinion holding that individual has no Procedural Due Process Right to challenge classification as a Sexual Predator where that designation is not material to state law.