Follow Us x
TENNESSEE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Information Regarding the Tennessee Sex Offender Registry Class Action
Following Does v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) challenging Michigan’s registry on an Ex Post Facto basis, dozens of complaints have been filed in the Federal District Courts in Tennessee challenging Tennessee’s sex offender registry as unconstitutional. After many successful rulings on these cases that were filed on an individual basis, our firm, along with attorneys at Bass, Berry, & Sims, PLC, have filed a class action lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s sex offender registry on behalf of all registrants who are being required to register who either had no registry requirement at the time of their conviction or only had a 10 year requirement.
This complaint, Does #1-8 v. Lee et al. (3:23-cv-01240), was filed on November 22, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and was assigned to Judge Aleta A. Trauger. The class has not yet been certified in this case.
What is a class action lawsuit?
A class action is a type of lawsuit that permits one or more people (called “plaintiffs” or “class representatives”) to represent a larger group of people (called a “class”) that have similar claims. Here, there are eight plaintiffs or class representatives, who are bringing the case on behalf of all registrants with a retroactive lifetime registration requirement.
The retroactive lifetime registration requirement has been imposed upon different class representatives at different times. For example, some class representatives were convicted of an offense that occurred prior to January 1, 1995, before any version of the registry existed. Other class representatives were convicted for an offense that occurred after 1995 but before June 30, 2000 when the first lifetime registration requirement was imposed. Further still, some class representatives whose offenses occurred after June 30, 2000 were not initially classified as violent sexual offenders but were later reclassified as violent, resulting in a retroactive lifetime requirement. Finally, some class representatives were convicted of offenses that occurred before July 1, 2014 and were later classified as an offender against children, resulting in a lifetime registration requirement. In all of these scenarios, a class representative initially either had no registry requirement or only a ten-year registry requirement at the time of their offense but were retroactively required to remain on the sexual offender registry for life. This violates the ex-post facto clause of the United States Constitution.
The proposed Class Representatives individual ex-post facto claims are based upon the following retroactive application of Tennessee's Sex Offender Registry:
Doe 1: Convicted of an offense in military court in 1988 and is now classified as a violent sexual offender and is required to retroactively register for life.
Doe 2: Convicted of an offense in 1990 and is now classified as a violent sexual offender and is required to retroactively register for life.
Doe 3: Convicted of a sexual offense in 2000. However, was later reclassified as a violent sexual offender and required to register for life as of June 30, 2000.
Doe 4: Convicted in Federal Court of a sexual offense in 2003, but was retroactively classified as violent as a result of the 2004 enactment of the SORVTA.
Doe 5: Classified as a sexual offender for a 2003 conviction but retroactively reclassified as a violent sexual offender and required to register for life as of June 8, 2004.
Doe 6: Convicted of a sexual offense in 2004 but retroactively reclassified as an offender against children and required to register for life.
Doe 7: Convicted in Federal Court of a sexual offense in 2005, but retroactively reclassified as an offender against children and required to register for life.
Doe 8: Convicted in Federal Court of a sexual offense in 2004, but retroactively required to register for life as a result of being reclassified as an offender against children.
Will the class action apply to you?
If certified by the court, the class action will apply to any individual on Tennessee’s registry that has a retroactive lifetime registration requirement based upon the law that was in place at the time of your offense.
- If your offense was prior to January 1, 1995, this class action will most likely apply to you.
- If you were convicted of aggravated sexual battery, rape, aggravated rape, rape of a child, or aggravated rape of a child, and the offense occurred between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 2000, then the class action will most likely apply to you.
- If you were convicted for committing an offense between January 1, 1995 and June 8, 2004 and that offense was classified as violent as of June 8, 2004, then this class action most likely applies to you.
- If your offense date was prior to July 1, 2014, and you are classified as an offender against children (not violent) then this class action most likely applies to you.
Importantly, if your offense date was after July 1, 2014, then this class action lawsuit will not apply to you. However, there may be other avenues for relief in the future. We recommend that all registrants stay fully compliant with the registry while the case is pending to avoid criminal charges or other consequences.
When will you get relief?
It is too soon to determine when the class action will be concluded. However, we have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting preliminary relief while the case is pending. If the preliminary injunction is granted in full, and you have a retroactive lifetime registration requirement, it is possible that you may receive relief in the very near future. However, the Court may not grant preliminary relief to the entire class. If that is the case, relief may not be granted until the case is concluded. We will update this website when we have any updates to when relief may be granted either on a preliminary or permanent basis.
What is the Status of the Case?
Updated October 8, 2024
On December 6, 2023, we filed a motion for class certification asking the Court to certify the Class and appoint the above Does as class representatives. This motion is currently pending before the Court. If the class is certified, the ultimate decision in this case will apply to everyone in the class (i.e., anyone with a retroactive lifetime registration requirement). If you are required to register in Tennessee, you do not need to do anything at this time to be included as part of the class.
Additionally, on December 8, 2023, the Court approved an Agreed Order to stay the proceedings in this case pending the outcome of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Does #1-9, No. 3:21-cv-00590 (M.D. Tenn.), appeal filed No. 23-5248 (6th Circuit), as the outcome of this appeal would impact the class action case.
On May 15, 2024, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued their ruling in Does #1-9, No. 23-5248 (6th Circuit). The Court reversed the District Court's decision in part, holding that the Snyder opinion relied upon by the plaintiffs did not support the conclusion that Tennessee's entire registry scheme violated the Ex Post Facto clause. Rather, the Sixth Circuit renewed it's prior holdings in Cutshall (1999) and Bredesen (2007), which essentially state that being retroactively placed on a public registry does not violate the Ex Post Facto clause. Importantly, however, the Sixth Circuit did state that many of the more punitive measures added to the registry since the Bredesen opinion likely do violate the Ex Post Facto clause. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court to conduct an analysis to determine which aspects of the registry as applied to the plaintiffs are unconstitutional. The likely result is that the plaintiffs will remain on the public registry but the most punitive aspects, such as the residential and workplace restrictions, will not apply to them.
Additionally, the Sixth Circuit held that Governer Bill Lee is not a proper defendant and dismissed him from the case, while also holding that the plaintiffs likely did not name all of the necessary defendants to the suit. The Court held that the TBI's enforcement of the registry is limited and that local DA's offices and registering agencies likely should also be named defendants.
On August 27, 2024, Judge Trauger of the Middle District Court entered an order in response to the Sixth Circuit remand. In her order, Judge Trauger stated that "The Sixth Circuit affirmed this court’s holding that Snyder applies to this case and agreed with this court that any Tennessee provisions that “mirror” the restrictions held to be punitive in Snyder 'must fail.' Doe v. Lee, 102 F.4th at 339. The Sixth Circuit, however, held that this court erred by not performing a “provision-by-provision analysis of Tennessee's regulatory regime to determine which portions violate the Ex Post Facto Clause and which do not.” Id. at 340. Accordingly, the court upheld her prior granting of summary judgement to the plaintiffs in part, and ordered the parties to confer and file a joint, numbered master list of all requirements associated with the Tennessee sexual offender registry, and to take a position regarding whether each provision at issue is punitive. This is a very strongly worded order and is a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs in that case.
On September 17, 2025, the plaintiffs, together with the state, filed a joint status report. The joint status report sets forth certain deadlines by which the parties must file their initial pleadings. A copy of the joint status report can be viewed at the link below.
On October 7, 2024, Judge Trauger of the Middle District Court entered an order that administratively closed the class action case while the Does #1-9 case (No. 3:21-cv-00590) is pending. The reasoning listed in the order is that "it is the consensus of the court that a final decision in Case No. 3:21-cv-00590 may be informative of the issues in this case." This means that we can take no further action in the class action case until the Does #1-9 case is resolved. Ultimately, we believe this is a positive development, given the strength of Judge Trauger's August 27, 2024 order.
We will provide more updates soon as the case moves forward.
Click the link below to review a copy of what has been filed thus far.
How to stay informed?
We will post periodic updates on this website. However, if you would like to be added to our email list to receive updates please complete the form below.
Because there are thousands of people on Tennessee's registry, the lawyers in this case cannot answer questions for individual registrants. However, if you have questions regarding removal from Community Supervision for Life or you need assistance in requesting to be removed from the registry because you are classified as a sexual offender and have completed your required registration period, please indicate that in the form below, and we will contact you.
*The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please refrain from sending any confidential information to us until an attorney-client relationship has been established in writing.
