How Do You Rebuild a Life When Going Online Takes Permission?
FLORIDA ACTION COMMITTEE · MEDIA BUZZ
How Do You Rebuild a Life When Going Online Takes Permission?
By FAC Media · October 18, 2026
For many people, going online is a simple part of the day. For someone living under court-ordered internet limits, that same step can come with fear and questions.
Can I apply for this job? Join a support meeting? Read a message from my child’s school? Will using this device violate a rule?
We’re sorry we missed this development earlier. While doing extensive research, we came across a Florida case that brings those concerns back into focus.
Amaury Rodriguez has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether its Packingham decision protects internet access for people still on supervised release. His case involves restrictions requiring court approval before he could use a computer or modem. Read his petition.
The internet is part of everyday life
So much of life now happens online. Job applications. Medical visits. Banking. School notices. Housing searches. Classes. Messages from family. Even finding the rules a person must follow may mean visiting a website.
For someone trying to rebuild, these are basic needs. A parent wants to stay involved. An older adult needs care. A person looking for work needs a way to apply. Someone who feels alone needs support.
Having to seek permission can add another barrier. That burden may also fall on a spouse, child or caregiver who helps with everyday tasks.
What the Court has done
On September 24, the Supreme Court asked the federal government to respond to Rodriguez’s petition. The response is due October 26.
The Court has not agreed to hear the case or ruled in his favor. Asking for a response is a step in reviewing the request. See the official docket.
We have covered this concern before
In 2019, FAC reported on United States v. Blair, which challenged broad probation-officer control over internet use. We also covered an Illinois ruling against a blanket social-media ban during probation.
Those were different cases. Rodriguez asks the nation’s highest court to address the continuing dispute over internet restrictions during supervision.
For our members and families
Children deserve safety. People rebuilding their lives deserve fair rules that respect their rights. Both matter.
This case will not automatically end the registry. But it raises an important question: How far can government restrictions reach into the tools people need to work, learn, receive care and stay connected?
To our members facing these barriers: we see why this matters. Behind a rule about a computer is a person trying to take the next step forward.
Sources and case status
- U.S. Supreme Court docket 26-5458 — status checked October 18, 2026.
- Rodriguez’s petition — filed August 21, 2026. A petition presents the petitioner’s arguments.
- Eleventh Circuit opinion, April 24, 2026 — unpublished; affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
This article provides general information and commentary, not advice about an individual’s supervision conditions.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I was in that stupid “treatment” group, we were told we had to sign a pledge to not use the internet at all. I refused, pointing out that modern life is simply impossible without it and, depending on the extremes the probation office wanted to take it, that would apply to watching TV and using an ATM card – everything was digital by then.
First, the provider tried saying that it only meant not using it for unauthorized purposes. I still refused – the plain language of the pledge and the ambiguity of “authorized purposes” was not something I would agree to, and that I learned the hard way not to blindly sign anything, especially when told it means something other than what it says. Then the threat to kick me out of the group and follow-on revocation. I responded to go ahead – I’ll go to court over this. I wasn’t kicked out, and the issue was never brought up again.
Courts recognize the necessity of the internet nowadays. If this case reaches the US Supreme Court, I imagine they’ll opine that blanket bans are unreasonable, individual bans may be reasonable on a case-by-case basis, and that POs can search phones and histories.
It’s worth questioning why elite figures like Mike Tyson seem to navigate registries in states like Nevada and Florida with ease while so many others are left behind. Is there a disparity in how the system treats everyday people versus those with celebrity status and VIP influence, or is the PFR community simply lacking the resources and legal backing to mount a real constitutional challenge or what rhey thought? WITH UNITY COMES CHANGE! #PFR #Lawsuit #Constitution #Justice #Equality ⚖️🏛️
I have been of supervision since June 10th 2016 but on the registry 2010. If I do nothing else I will get off on June 10th 2038 which I will be 76. I am 44 at moment.
What an amazing job that you’re doing to get the truth out there. Many blessings your way for standing for those who aren’t able to stand.
I didn’t even have to read the article. The title said enough. It really makes me sad to what the world is doing to another spirit being.