KS: Kansas Supreme Court Reverses Convictions for Failing to Pay Sex-Offender Registration Fees

Here’s a good decision from the Kansas Supreme Court that touches on a question many of us have been asking about… these registration fees. What happens if you can’t afford them? [NOTE: This is Kansas, not Florida, but still a good indication of how judges might think.]

In State v. Sims (August 14, 2026), the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously reversed three convictions against Sims for failing to pay the $20 fee required under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). The Court’s decision came after years of litigation over whether Kansas could impose criminal punishment for failure to pay a registration fee.

Sims had complied with the underlying requirement to register. His problem was that he did not pay the $20 fee. He was ultimately convicted, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed.

Three justices went further in their reasoning and raised a fundamental constitutional question: What legitimate government interest is served by putting someone in prison for failing to pay a $20 administrative registration fee?

One Justice wrote that imposing felony criminal liability for failing to pay a $20 administrative fee may be “arbitrary and unreasonable” and may lack any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. He emphasized that Sims had actually appeared at the sheriff’s office and registered, but was prosecuted because he owed $20.

The opinion is particularly significant because the Kansas court recognized that laws must be rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and cannot become unreasonable or oppressive simply because the legislature has enacted them. Like seriously… what’s the public safety nexus of a $20 fee?

Of note, however, the Kansas Supreme Court did not hold that the registration-fee statute is unconstitutional, but the opinion suggests it would have decided so had the case covered that point (” Is imposing strict criminal liability for the failure to pay a $20 administrative fee—which may be a felony punished by significant time in prison—within the Legislature’s constitutional police powers? This plurality opinion cannot provide a definitive answer, given the unique nature of this case, the way we short-circuited a full briefing and argument on the question, and the short-handed nature of the five-member court deciding the case. That said, I suggest that the challenged statute is likely so arbitrary and unreasonable that it extends beyond the police power of the state and therefore lacks any rational or reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest”)

The good nugget that came out of this case is that it reminds us that simply labeling something a “registry requirement” does not place it beyond constitutional scrutiny.

Kansas v Sims