On January 24, the Michigan Supreme Court held the state’s sex offender registration scheme unconstitutional on due process grounds as applied to one Boban Temelkoski. Temelkoski had pleaded guilty under a youthful offender statute with the expectation that no collateral consequences would attach to the disposition if he successfully completed its conditions. However, several years later a registration requirement was enacted and applied retroactively to his case. Because the court decided Temelkoski’s case on due process grounds, it did not need to address arguments that application of the registration statute to him constituted constitutionally impermissible punishment. However, the court hinted in dicta how it might decide that issue, stating that “It is undisputed that registration under SORA constitutes a civil disability.” While a win is a win, we must wait another day for a decision on the constitutionality of Michigan’s registration scheme under the Ex Post Facto Clause and the State’s version of the Eighth Amendment. An analysis of the Temelkoski decision by Asli Bashir, a 2017 graduate of Yale Law School, follows.
Read moreTag: bashir
Restoration of Rights Project (RRP)
- Loss & restoration of civil/firearms rights
- Pardon policy & practice
- Expungement, sealing & other record relief
- Criminal record in employment, licensing & housing
RRP: State-By-State Guides
RRP: 50-State Comparisons
Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Recommendations for Reform (Dec. 2025)

50-state comparisons
About the Restoration of Rights Project
The Restoration of Rights Project (RRP) is a project of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center in partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, National HIRE Network, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and Paper Prisons Initiative. Launched in 2017, the RRP is an online resource containing detailed state-by-state analyses of the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights and status following arrest or conviction. Jurisdictional “profiles” cover areas such as loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, judicial and executive mechanisms for avoiding or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment, licensing, and housing. In addition to the jurisdictional profiles, RRP materials include a set of 50-state comparison charts that make it possible to see national patterns in restoration laws and policies. Short “postcard” summaries of the law in each state serve as a gateway to the more detailed information in the profiles, and provide a snapshot of applicable law in each state.
Originally published in 2006 by CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love, the research in the RRP has been kept up to date and substantially expanded over the years, and it is summarized in an appendix to the treatise on collateral consequences published jointly by NACDL and Thompson Reuters (West). It is intended as a resource for practitioners in all phases of the criminal justice system, for courts, for civil practitioners assisting clients whose court-imposed sentence has exposed them to additional civil penalties, for policymakers and advocates interested in reentry and reintegration of convicted persons, and for the millions of Americans with a criminal record who are seeking to put their past behind them.
These resources may be republished as long as appropriate attribution is given to the RRP as its source.




