Dear Members and Advocates,

So, how was your week? Anything exciting happen?

Well, we filed a historic lawsuit challenging Florida’s sex offender registry, and that’s just the beginning! This past week has been one of the most significant weeks in the history of the Florida Action Committee. After years of research, advocacy, data collection, legislative work and preparation, FAC has taken our fight to a new level. If you haven’t already read the complaint, stop reading this update and do so now: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/FAC-v-Glass-ET-AL.pdf

Now that you’ve read it, you can see that this isn’t simply another case challenging one provision of Florida law. It is a comprehensive, top-down constitutional challenge to an entire system that has imposed decades of restrictions and collateral consequences on tens of thousands of people in Florida.

And the response has been remarkable. The lawsuit has generated significant media attention, bringing FAC’s arguments and the real-world consequences of Florida’s registry system to an audience far beyond our membership. We were featured in several print news publications and even a couple of broadcasts. For an issue that is so often discussed in sound bites and political slogans, this is an important opportunity to put the facts, the evidence and the constitutional issues front and center.

We’ve also received an incredible amount of supportive contact from members of the legal community. Attorneys and others who understand constitutional law, civil rights and registry litigation have reached out to express their support and, in some cases, explore ways they can contribute. That response has been both encouraging and validating.

And then came another milestone: we served our first defendants. Copies of the complaint, exhibit and summonses were emailed out to all defendants giving them an opportunity to waive service. A few did (Jacksonville/Duval, Hendry and Broward Counties), a few told us essentially to kick rocks, they weren’t waiving and they were sent out for formal service. And some have already been formally served by a process server. FDLE has already been served and in the coming weeks we will have all remaining county and city defendants served.

There is something very different about moving from planning and preparing a lawsuit to actually filing and serving the governmental entities who must now answer it. The case is no longer something we’re planning. It is underway and things are very active. It almost overshadowed another important victory in the Florida Supreme Court, where the Court rejected the FDLE’s attempt to vacate a registry removal. That was another huge thing that happened this week!

We’re also excited to announce that FAC has brought on a new Chair of our Media Committee. The timing couldn’t be better. As this litigation moves forward, communicating what is happening – and, perhaps more importantly, explaining why it matters and seeking support – is going to be critical. We have a tremendous story to tell, and we intend to tell it accurately, aggressively and effectively.

And the numbers are reflecting the increased attention. FAC’s website experienced record-high traffic this week. Where we used to receive 400-500 visitors on a good day, yesterday, August 17^th, analytics reported 5,846 visitors, with the overwhelming majority being new users! People are looking for information. They are reading the lawsuit. They are sharing our material. They are paying attention. And they are learning about FAC and our mission.

Filing the lawsuit was not the finish line. It was the starting line. There will be motions. There will be arguments. There will be discovery. There will be opposition. There will undoubtedly be setbacks along the way. But most of all there will be opportunities to fundamentally change the way Florida treats people on the registry.

That is why FAC needs its members now more than ever. If you’re not a member, now is the time to join. Stay informed. Share our posts. Talk about the lawsuit with anyone who will listen. Tell people why it matters. Support our legal challenge if you are able. Join our Media Committee (we need people who have access to social media and can engage with other commenters) And, most importantly, stay engaged. For years, our members have asked for this challenge and last week that day arrived.

The lawsuit is filed. The defendants are being served. The media is watching. The legal community is paying attention. And we are just getting started. Thank you for being a part of FAC!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-08-FAC Lawsuit is Gaining Traction appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

WE DID IT!!!

Yesterday, August 11, 2026, the Florida Action Committee filed the most significant legal challenge to Florida’s sex offender registry ever undertaken, and potentially one of the most consequential registry challenges ever filed in the United States.

The case, Florida Action Committee v. Mark Glass, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The case number is 4:26-cv-00388 and it was assigned to Judge Mark Walker.

This is the moment we have been working toward for months… Years, actually.

As we have explained over the past several weeks, this is not another lawsuit challenging one particular registry law, one particular local ordinance, or one particular defendant. The complaint asks the Court to look at the registry as it exists today, after nearly three decades of legislative expansion and the proliferation of local restrictions. What began as a system of public notification has evolved into something vastly different: lifetime registration, residency restrictions, presence restrictions, reporting requirements, travel restrictions, speech restrictions and criminal penalties for minor technical violations of often vague rules – all imposed on people who, in many cases, completed their criminal sentences decades ago.

The question at the heart of this case is a simple one: At what point does a supposedly “civil regulatory system” become unconstitutional punishment?

The complaint presents six separate constitutional claims. It argues that the cumulative registry scheme violates: (1) The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (2) The Ex Post Facto Clause, when restrictions enacted after an individual’s offense are applied retroactively; (3) The constitutional right to interstate travel; (4) The constitutional right to remain in public places for innocent purposes; (5) The Due Process Clause’s prohibition against vague criminal laws; and (6) The First Amendment right to free speech.

The lawsuit also challenges numerous county and municipal ordinances that impose additional restrictions on registrants. And that is important. Florida’s registry isn’t just one law. It is a complicated web of state statutes, county ordinances and municipal restrictions. The complaint recognizes that challenging only one piece of that system could leave the rest of the machinery intact.

The complaint documents the real-world consequences of that system, including housing instability, homelessness, barriers to employment, interference with family life and restrictions on movement, employment and travel. The Constitution does not disappear simply because someone has a criminal record and public safety and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive.

FAC is not asking the Court to excuse criminal conduct. We are asking whether the government can continue imposing punishment indefinitely after a person has completed the sentence imposed by a judge, and whether it can continue adding new restrictions decades later.

Yesterday was the beginning of what will be a huge battle. There will be motions, responses, hearings and, almost certainly, appeals. There are 51 defendants (the State – via FDLE, and 50 municipalities) who will fight this case tooth and nail and we expect them to. That is why we retained a firm and assembled a legal team capable of taking this case as far as necessary – even to the Supreme Court.

The complaint itself is 61 pages and addresses the history, structure and practical consequences of Florida’s registry before presenting the constitutional claims. The exhibits and expert declarations are more than 100 pages more. This is THE lawsuit!

This case belongs to all of us. If you are on the registry or have a loved one who is, this is your case. For more than 15 years of our existence, FAC members have told us about being unable to find housing, being separated from family, losing jobs, being unable to travel, being afraid of accidentally violating an obscure requirement and feeling as though a sentence that ended years ago never actually ended.

For more than 15 years we have collected your stories. We have documented the consequences. We have researched the laws. We have compiled the research. And now, we have packaged it all neatly in a lawsuit and put the entire system before a federal court.

This lawsuit was made possible by FAC members, donors, volunteers, advocates and everyone who refused to accept that the status quo must continue forever. FAC has spent a very long time preparing for this moment. Now we need to be prepared for everything that comes next. With 51 defendants, there will be a lot! What we need more than anything at this point is contributions to sustain the fight. Many of you have pitched in and we appreciate it greatly. Our hope (and faith in our membership) is that now that the lawsuit has been filed and now that you can read it and understand the magnitude, you’ll see what we (all of us, including yourselves) have accomplished by working together. You can make a contribution to our General Legal Fund by clicking here. 100% of your donation goes directly to your lawsuit.

It’s going to be a whirlwind, so lets go!!!

United we stand,

The Florida Action Committee

You can read the complaint here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/FAC-v-Glass-ET-AL.pdf

You can follow the case here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/teams/legal-committee/fac-v-glass-et-al/ (a link will remain on our website under ‘Committees’ ‘Legal’

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-08-12-Monumental Lawsuit Filed by FAC appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

For years, we’ve said that meaningful change would not come from simply complaining about a broken system. It would need to come from building the right case, assembling the right team, and being prepared to see it through to the very end.

Today, we are approximately one week away from filing what we believe will be the most significant legal challenge ever brought against Florida’s registry laws. This case is unlike any challenge that has come before it, not only in Florida, but anywhere in the country.

First, we have taken a top-down approach to litigation. We recognize that whichever side loses in the trial court will almost certainly appeal. Rather than waiting until later to assemble an appellate team, FAC retained one from the very beginning. We are represented by the law firm of Winston Taylor (formerly Winston & Strawn LLP) a 1,400+ attorney international firm, and our lead counsel is attorney Michael Kimberly, one of the nation’s premier appellate advocates. Michael has argued before the United States Supreme Court ten times and has won in more than two-thirds of the 50+ appeals he has argued. From day one, we’ve built this case with the expectation that it will ultimately be decided at the highest levels of our judicial system.

Second, we are not limiting this lawsuit to suing the State of Florida. While the State’s laws are extraordinarily burdensome, anyone who lives here knows that it is often the maze of county and city ordinances that makes life virtually impossible. A victory against the State alone would still leave countless local restrictions intact. That’s why this lawsuit will challenge not only the State, but dozens of counties and municipalities whose ordinances have created an impossible patchwork of restrictions across Florida. We are taking on the entire system – not just one piece of it.

Third, while we cannot reveal the specific legal claims until the complaint is officially filed, we can tell you this: we’re going all in! It is, in many respects, the culmination of everything we’ve been working toward. The legal theories, the evidence, and the strategy have all been carefully crafted with one objective: to bring meaningful and lasting change.

You may remember that on January 8, 2026, during our first Member Call of the year, we laid out our goals for 2026. The Legal Committee announced plans to bring two municipal challenges—one of which has already been filed, with the second to be filed this month. We also said that if HB 45/SB 212 became law, it would be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and FAC would respond with a comprehensive legal challenge. That promise to you is about to become reality. Next week, you’ll see that FAC has done exactly what we said we would do.

This lawsuit would not be possible without you. Every membership, every volunteer hour, every email sent to legislators, every public records request, every committee meeting, every donation, and every word of encouragement has helped bring us to this moment. This is your lawsuit as much as it is ours. While we are proud of what we’ve accomplished, one area where we still need your help is fundraising. Litigation of this magnitude requires substantial resources, and our General Legal Fund remains critically important. If you are able, please make a contribution to our General Legal Fund to help us carry this fight through.

Finally, don’t forget to join us for our Monthly Member Call this Thursday evening. We’ll provide a legal update, hear from our Legislative Committee as we prepare for the upcoming election season, and from some of our other leaders to discuss opportunities to advance our mission in the months ahead.

The road ahead won’t be easy. But for the first time in a long time, we are not simply reacting to bad laws – we are challenging them with a strategy equal to the task. Thank you for believing in this organization, for standing with one another, and for refusing to give up hope. Together, we’re proving that determined people, working together over time, really can change the course of history.

The next chapter in FAC’s history begins next week.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

*** Please do not forget to make a donation to the General Legal Fund ***

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-08-04- One Week Away!!! appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

On July 27, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act into law. Named after a six-year-old Florida boy, whose abduction and murder shocked the nation, the Act promised to protect children from people convicted of sex offenses. Few pieces of legislation have enjoyed such broad bipartisan support or generated such high public expectations.

Twenty years later, it is time to ask the question few lawmakers have been willing to ask: Has the Adam Walsh Act accomplished what it promised? The answer, based on two decades of experience and a growing body of scientific research, is NO!

No one questions the tragedy. Adam’s murder was horrific, and every parent shares John and Revé Walsh’s desire to spare another family from such unimaginable pain. But honoring Adam’s memory does not require defending a law that does more harm than good. There are better ways to remember Adam.

The Adam Walsh Act created the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), establishing federal standards for state registries and pressuring states to expand registration requirements through the threat of losing federal funding. The Act shifted the nation’s focus away from individualized assessments and toward offense-based classifications. Rather than asking whether a particular person presented a risk to the community, the law increasingly assumed that everyone convicted of certain offenses should be treated the same. Over the next twenty years, many states – especially Florida – went even further. Registration periods became longer. Public notification expanded. Residency restrictions multiplied. Presence restrictions followed. Reporting requirements became more burdensome. Reporting times shortened. Entire families became collateral damage.

Today, nearly a million Americans appear on sex offender registries. The majority have remained offense-free for decades, yet continue to report to law enforcement, disclose personal information, and live under restrictions that often bear little relationship to their actual risk.  At Florida Action Committee, we don’t need to imagine the consequences of these policies. We hear them every day.

We hear from fathers prevented from attending their children’s school functions, unable to live with their family because a nearby park makes the residence off-limits, individuals sleeping under bridges or in parking lots because residency restrictions leave them nowhere else to go, parents forced to choose between complying with the law and remaining part of their children’s lives, people denied jobs despite decades of lawful living, people afraid to travel because every jurisdiction has different rules, families living in constant fear that an unintentional mistake could result in another felony, and the unintentional mistakes or arbitrary law enforcement actions that led to those additional felonies.

These stories are not isolated, and we question whether they are actually unintended consequences. They are the predictable result of policies that have expanded year after year without regard for whether they actually improve public safety.

Florida’s own Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) report documenting that homelessness among registrants has reached staggering levels in South Florida. In Miami-Dade County, approximately 31 percent of registrants were reported homeless. In Broward County, that number exceeded one-third of the registered population. No serious public safety expert would argue that homelessness makes communities safer. Yet many laws enacted in the wake of the Adam Walsh Act undermine every one of those protective factors and twenty years of research shows that.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Adam Walsh Act’s twentieth anniversary is that we no longer need to speculate about its effectiveness. The research has been conducted. Again. And again. And again. FAC has spent years sharing studies from respected researchers across the country. While individual studies differ in methodology, one conclusion appears repeatedly: Broad public registries and blanket restrictions have shown little evidence of reducing sexual reoffending. Residency restrictions do not prevent sexual abuse because children are overwhelmingly victimized by someone they know. Not by strangers living nearby. We have shared research showing that risk varies tremendously among individuals and declines over time (even for the most high-risk offenders), making lifetime restrictions inconsistent with modern risk science.

On the flip side, we have highlighted studies showing that stable housing, employment, treatment, and community support are among the strongest predictors of successful reintegration. We have shared research documenting the extremely low recidivism rates among many categories of registrants, while laws continue to impose identical restrictions regardless of demonstrated risk. And we have not only shared this research with you, we’ve shared it with nearly every lawmaker, from the federal level, to the state, to the county, all the way down to each municipality. We have met with lawmakers, we have testified before committee meetings, we have even spoken before the United Nations. In some cases we’ve chipped away at horrible bills or were successful in preventing their passage – which is still a huge accomplishment – but to date we’ve not been successful in getting lawmakers to roll back ineffective laws, absent bringing a lawsuit. Unfortunately, that’s what it takes – unfortunately that’s where we’re heading again.

Sexual abuse is a serious problem, and FAC’s mission should never be confused with condoning or excusing it. By pointing out that the Adam Walsh Act is a miserably failed policy is in no way seeking to disparage his legacy or mitigate the tragedy. To the contrary, Adam’s legacy should be honored with strategies that reduce harm. If twenty years of studies consistently questioned the effectiveness of any policy, lawmakers would question it. But because this Act is tied to the Walsh name and a horrific event, registry laws have largely become politically untouchable. That does not make them effective in protecting children – it just makes them immune from scrutiny.

Years ago, FAC has taken the position that the Adam Walsh Act needs to be repealed. Nothing about that position is intended to diminish Adam’s memory. If anything, we are demanding that we honor it more thoughtfully. Imagine if the billions spent maintaining and enforcing ever-expanding useless registries had instead been invested in preventing child sexual abuse before it occurred. Imagine universal prevention education. Greater access to mental health services. Improved victim support. Evidence-based treatment programs. Resources for families in crisis. Investigators focused on active threats (not technical violations). Validated risk assessment tools directing attention toward those who genuinely pose the greatest danger while allowing low risk individuals to further reduce their risk by re-integrating successfully. Those approaches may not generate political headlines. But they save children.

Twenty years is enough time to evaluate any public policy honestly. The Adam Walsh Act has produced one of the largest systems of perpetual punishment in American history and has expanded government surveillance over hundreds of thousands of people long after they completed their criminal sentences. It has destabilized families. Created homelessness. Destroyed any opportunity to support oneself and one’s family. Subjected innocent spouses and children to stigma. And it consumed enormous public resources and exposes governments to repeated lawsuits without ever delivering the public safety benefits that were promised.

We can honor Adam Walsh without clinging to policies that have failed to protect children as promised. The greatest tribute we can pay to Adam is not to preserve a failed system because it bears his name. It is to build one that actually protects children. Twenty years later, America owes Adam – and every child – nothing less.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee.

We are weeks away from filing our historic legal challenge to the Florida registry. Please donate to our General Legal Fund to help support this lawsuit.

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-28-Twenty Years Later: The Adam Walsh Act’s Legacy appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

Imagine waking up one morning to find law enforcement outside your home. Neighbors are watching. Your family is confused. You are placed in handcuffs and taken away for a crime you did not commit.

That is exactly what happened to Robert, a Florida man who spent decades working as a commercial crabber near Fort Myers. He had never even been to Jacksonville Beach, hundreds of miles away from his home. Yet, in 2024, a surveillance image, facial recognition technology, and a supposed 93% confidence score led police to arrest him for a crime in Jacksonville he had nothing to do with. Investigators had evidence that his truck had never left his home area. The technology was wrong. The arrest was wrong. The charges were eventually dropped. But the damage was already done. Robert had to borrow money and put up his truck title to make bond. His mugshot entered public databases. His reputation was damaged. The system that was supposed to protect innocent people instead placed the burden on him to prove he was not the person the machine claimed he was.

This is the problem with a justice system that increasingly treats registry lists, database matches, and assumptions as shortcuts around actual investigation. And for those required to register on a sex offender registry, the risks are even greater. Registrants are already in the system. Your photograph, identifying information, and history already exist in government databases accessible to law enforcement. You are considered a suspect before any crime is even committed, so when something happens, you become the primary suspect. As more agencies use online stings, facial recognition, license plate readers, artificial intelligence, and interconnected databases, registrants are uniquely vulnerable.

In another Florida case, an innocent person’s photos were taken from social media and used by another individual to create a false online identity. That false identity became involved in an undercover sex sting investigation. Investigators followed the digital trail to the person whose photos had been stolen rather than the person who was actually responsible. The innocent person was arrested, forced to post bond, hired an attorney, and spent months trying to prove he was not the person behind the account. This should concern everyone, not just people on the registry. Every person has photographs online. Every person can become the subject of a database error, mistaken identity, or faulty assumption. Artificial Intelligence, license plate readers and facial recognition technology are powerful tools, but they can’t be a substitute for actual police investigation. Otherwise, more ordinary people will become victims of a system that moves faster than the facts.

So what needs to change? First, law enforcement agencies need to be accountable for mistakes made when they rely on AI tools. They can’t just throw up their hands and say “oops, I guess the computer got it wrong”. If they are held financially responsible for the harms caused by a false arrest, they will verify. This is especially important now that private citizens are conducting online sex offender stings. Also, technology should assist investigations, not replace them. It’s what the principle of “presumed innocent” is all about. If someone comes up on a registry, facial recognition software or a license plate is incorrectly scanned someplace, consider it a tip, not a conclusion. Get copies of the digital records, do some independent research, assume it could be a mistake and put the burden of proof on the technology before disrupting a person’s life.

With the recent amendment to the Florida “loitering” statute and recent efforts across the state to catch and lock up as many people on the registry as possible, we should all be very concerned. Cameras are all over the place. License plate readers are everywhere. Police are relying on this imperfect technology rampantly. You don’t even have to leave your house anymore to have your face allegedly recognized or your license plate allegedly read inside an exclusion zone. Then it’ll be up to you to prove it was a mistake, months can pass, thousands wasted on attorneys fees, and your life in turmoil.

It’s one of the reasons why FAC constantly reminds our members that technology can be used for our protection as well as for government surveillance of us. We highly recommend vehicle dash cams, doorbell cameras, and security cameras throughout your homes. You should turn on location history features on personal devices such as your phone. Make cloud backups of important information. Keep copies of important text messages, emails, online communications and certainly every piece of registration paperwork and screenshots of everything submitted to the FDLE cyber communications portal. If you punch a clock for work, keep records of your work logs or timesheets. If you go someplace out of the ordinary, keep receipts and transaction records. This may seem paranoid and a bit much, but read this post and you’ll understand why you need to be proactive. With one in 5 people on the registry arrested last month in Osceola, we all need to be paranoid!

Knowing these crackdowns are taking place, there are other things you must keep in mind. If you are question by law enforcement (other than if you are on supervision and your PO is questioning you) you do not have to consent to a search of your home or property (including your cellphone). You do not have to answer questions without legal advice. You have the right to consult an attorney, and you have the right to remain silent until you do. And that’s something you should absolutely do! Even if you’re totally innocent, you should not assume that explaining everything immediately will resolve the situation. Statements made during stressful encounters can sometimes be misunderstood and by saying anything or voluntarily handing over your phone thinking you have nothing to hide, you are inviting law enforcement to “find something” during their fishing expedition.

We are not sharing these situations to create fear or to suggest that every registrant is at imminent risk of being falsely accused. The purpose is to encourage awareness and vigilance in an environment where technology, databases, and public information can be misused. A false accusation can happen to anyone, but registrants face additional challenges because assumptions already exist. By taking reasonable precautions and understanding your rights, you can better protect yourself. FAC is doing all we can from an advocacy and legal perspective to fight for your rights, but it’s up to you to know them. Be careful out there!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-21-At Risk of Being Falsely Accused appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

We are now approximately one month away from filing what we believe will be a historic legal challenge to Florida’s sex offender registry laws. This lawsuit represents the most significant legal efforts ever undertaken by the Florida Action Committee (FAC) and has the potential to impact not only registrants in Florida, but registry laws and policies across the country.

This challenge was prompted by recent amendments to Florida’s residency restriction and proximity (loitering) laws (HB 45/SB 212), which dramatically expand the restrictions placed on registrants and create new barriers to housing, family relationships, employment, and everyday activities. These amendments raise serious constitutional concerns and threaten to impose restrictions that are not supported by evidence showing they improve public safety.

The FAC legal team has been working diligently behind the scenes. Attorney Michael Kimberly is actively completing the complaint, our experts have been retained, supporting data has been collected, and we are carefully building a case designed to put us in the strongest possible position to succeed. We are not simply filing a lawsuit – we are preparing for a fight that we believe can create meaningful and lasting change.

One of the most important ways you can support this effort is by sharing your personal experience. We are seeking individuals who are directly impacted by these new restrictions and who are willing to submit a declaration describing how the law affects their lives. A qualified declarant would be someone whose circumstances are impacted by the recent amendments. Some examples include: “I visit my elderly mother several times per year. Because I visit more than three days in a calendar year, I am required to register her address as a Temporary Residence. Because she lives in a community with a pool, I can no longer visit her.”, “The lease on my apartment expires this year and my family planned to move from a one-bedroom apartment to a two-bedroom apartment within the same community. Because the community has a pool, I can no longer relocate, even within the same community.”, “I work in a shopping mall and interact with dozens of people every day. I cannot always determine whether a customer is 17 or 19 years old, so I do not know whether I can legally communicate with them. I asked my supervising officer whether the mall is considered a ‘place where children congregate,’ and he did not know.” These are only examples from some of our members. The strongest declarations are those that explain your actual circumstances, how the new law affects you, and the uncertainty or hardship it creates.

If you would like to be a declarant, please contact our legal team at: legal@floridaactioncommittee.org and share your circumstances. Please do not describe your underlying case, since it’s not relevant to this lawsuit. Only describe how the current law, particularly the newly amended residency restriction and loitering statutes impact your life. We can assist you with formatting it into a formal declaration, but your story is your own and you could become an important part of this historic challenge.

Another area we still need help with is funding this case. Litigation of this magnitude requires significant resources. We have paid out our initial retainer, but there are experts and once litigation becomes active there will be additional costs associated. FAC must raise an additional funds to help fund this legal effort. You can make your donation to our General Legal Fund here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/donations/. We are incredibly grateful to everyone who has already contributed. Every donation – large or small – has helped bring us to this point. Without the support of our members and supporters, this challenge would not be possible.

If you believe that these laws have gone too far, if you believe constitutional rights matter, and if you believe evidence-based public safety policies should guide our laws, now is the time to stand with FAC. Let’s make history together!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-14- Preparing for a Historic Legal Challenge appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

Last week, the 2025-2026 term of the Supreme Court of the United States ended. We posted a summary of what cases had been decided during that session and what relevance they have to sex offender registry issues. We noted that it’s been a long time since the Court had taken up a true registry challenge and we hope that our forthcoming case will be the one to make it there.

The response to last week’s post and to our forthcoming lawsuit was great. Many of you asked the same questions, “If a major constitutional challenge to sex offender registration laws reached today’s Supreme Court, how would the justices vote?” and “What is the likelihood that the Supreme Court would overturn Smith v. Doe?” In this week’s update, we’ll share our thoughts and some of our strategies, and we’ll make a plea to our members and other advocacy groups who might read this update to please support our challenge.

Of course, no one knows how any Justice might feel about a “sex offender case” that comes before it. Supreme Court justices are notoriously difficult to predict, and any attempt to handicap a future case is just that – an educated guess. But looking at each justice’s judicial philosophy can offer some clues.

Justice Clarence Thomas has increasingly emphasized the Constitution’s original meaning and our nation’s historical understanding of punishment. His recent concurrence in Elligburg suggests he is less interested in what lawmakers call a law and more interested in what it actually does. If modern registry laws resemble historical forms of punishment such as banishment, public shaming, or continuing government supervision, Justice Thomas may be willing to take a hard look at whether they are truly “civil.” He even called out Smith v. Doe, suggesting its analysis was wrong.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has consistently demonstrated a healthy skepticism of government power and a strong commitment to individual constitutional rights. He has not been afraid to side with criminal defendants when fundamental constitutional protections are at stake. In the 2019 case Gundy v. United States, Gorsuch issued a powerful dissenting opinion (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas) arguing that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Attorney General to write his own criminal code. His focus on liberty and constitutional text could make him receptive to arguments that today’s registry laws have crossed constitutional boundaries.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is also an originalist. Her opinions often begin with history and tradition. If presented with compelling evidence that modern registration schemes impose disabilities that resemble historical punishments, she could prove to be an important voice on the Court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a wild card. He generally respects precedent but has also shown a willingness to recognize when circumstances have changed. Given that he, himself, was embroiled in sexual abuse allegations, we often see that people accused sometimes push back the hardest to distance their own allegations. It’s the “how can I be a sexual abuser when I’m obviously so strongly against the issue?” attitude, that might be in his mind. Justice Samuel Alito is a concern. He has traditionally deferred to legislatures on matters involving public safety. He would likely be among the more difficult votes for challengers to secure.

The Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson present an interesting question. While they often vote to protect individual rights in criminal cases, they also place considerable value on precedent. Whether they would be willing to distinguish today’s registry laws from those considered in 2003 remains to be seen. A couple of really promising facts lead us to believe these justices might be on our side. First, there was the Ortiz case, which was a case the Supreme Court decided not to take up, but that Justice Sotomayor felt compelled enough to write an opinion on regardless. It was a residency restriction case in which she indicated she strongly felt a residency restriction was unconstitutional. She also suggested it was “a matter of time” until the Court took up such a challenge. Since our forthcoming case is based primarily on residency restrictions, this just might be the case she was waiting for.

Then there’s also Justice Brown Jackson, what influences our positivity on her position also doesn’t come from a case the Supreme Court heard, but on her confirmation hearings. During the confirmation hearings, several senators scrutinized her sentencing decisions in child pornography cases, arguing that she had imposed sentences below the advisory guidelines. Justice Jackson responded that these cases require judges to evaluate the unique facts and circumstances of each defendant, rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. That philosophy could become significant in the context of sex offender registration laws, where broad statutory schemes often impose identical restrictions on people with vastly different offenses, risk levels, and decades of offense-free conduct. If presented with a challenge to registry laws, Justice Jackson may be receptive to the argument that treating every registrant the same, regardless of individual circumstances, raises serious constitutional concerns. She may be skeptical of legal regimes that fail to distinguish between individuals and instead rely on blanket rules that apply equally to everyone. Another issue that will be prominent in our challenge.

And then there is the Chief Justice. John Roberts occupies a unique place in this discussion because, before joining the Supreme Court, he was the attorney who argued Smith v. Doe on behalf of the government before the Court. It is fair to assume he understands that case as well as anyone. At first glance, asking Chief Justice Roberts to rule against the position he once argued might seem like a monumental task. But perhaps it isn’t.

Throughout our advocacy, we’ve constantly thought in the perspective of “overturning Smith v. Doe”, but that might not necessarily be what we’re looking to accomplish here. The comparison many people make is to the Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. We don’t think that’s the right comparison. Roe involved the same medical procedure outcome in 2022 that it involved in 1973. The legal debate centered on constitutional interpretation, not whether the underlying facts had fundamentally changed. An abortion is an abortion. Same today as it was 50 years ago. But registry laws are different. The registry that the Supreme Court reviewed in Smith v. Doe is not the registry that exists today. The underlying facts have fundamentally changed.

When the Court upheld Alaska’s registry law in 2003, it repeatedly emphasized features that it believed demonstrated the law was regulatory rather than punitive. The Court noted that registrants remained free to live and work where they wished. There were no residency restrictions. There were no exclusion zones that effectively banished people from communities. There were no driver’s license markings. No passport identifiers. No internet identifier reporting. No extensive in-person reporting requirements. No restrictions preventing someone from entering parks, libraries, or countless other public places. The Court also believed the law imposed only a minimal affirmative disability or restraint.

Can anyone honestly say that describes the registry today? Today’s registrants face residency restrictions that contribute to homelessness. Registrants must report repeatedly, in person to sheriff’s offices, throughout the year. They must report vehicles, internet identifiers, travel plans, temporary lodging of three days, employment changes, volunteer activities, higher education enrollment, and a growing list of life events. Public websites provide detailed personal information that can lead to harassment, vigilantism, housing discrimination, and employment barriers. Entire categories of public places have become effectively off limits under state and local laws.

In other words, the 2003 Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe evaluated one animal. Today’s Court will be asked to evaluate something very, very, different. That distinction matters. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to “overturn” Smith v. Doe to provide meaningful constitutional relief. In fact, even though we might not agree with that decision, one of the strongest legal arguments may be that Smith was decided based on the Alaska law that existed in 2003, but that today’s registration systems have evolved so dramatically that Smith simply does not control the outcome anymore. Asking Chief Justice Roberts to recognize that reality is very different from asking him to admit he was wrong twenty-three years ago.

When introducing a new “registry case” to the Supreme Court, we are asking the Justices to acknowledge what every registrant, every family member, and every advocate already knows; that the registry of 2026 is not the registry of 2003. And when that case reaches the Supreme Court, we believe that difference may become the most important fact in the courtroom.

Of course, none of this will happen unless the right case is brought before the Court. That’s why FAC has retained attorney Michael Kimberly to lead our forthcoming constitutional challenge. Michael has argued nine cases before the United States Supreme Court, giving him the experience and credibility needed to navigate a case from the trial court all the way to the nation’s highest court. If there is an opportunity to present the strongest possible challenge to today’s registry laws, we believe there is no one better suited to lead that effort. But litigation of this magnitude is expensive, and it cannot succeed without the support of our members and our sister organizations. If you believe the time has come to ask the courts to recognize that the registry of today is not the registry considered in Smith v. Doe, please consider making a donation to FAC’s general legal fund. Every contribution, regardless of size, helps move this historic challenge one step closer to the Supreme Court and we need your help now more than ever.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-07- If a Registry Case Returned to the Supreme Court appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

This past week, members of FAC attended the annual conference hosted by the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL – of which FAC is the Florida affiliate). The conference brought together advocates, attorneys, researchers, and leaders from around the country to discuss legislative developments, litigation strategies, public education efforts, and the future of registry reform.

About 150 people from across the country attended in person, including more than a dozen from Florida. FAC also maintained an information table throughout the conference, distributing brochures and materials and ensuring that Florida’s efforts were well represented among attendees from across the nation.

One of the most encouraging takeaways from the conference was the tremendous respect and recognition FAC received from advocates in other states. Numerous attendees specifically commended Florida’s advocacy efforts, our member communication, our legal challenges, our social media and PR initiatives. Despite the unique challenges we face in Florida, our work is being noticed and appreciated nationwide.

A recurring theme throughout the conference was unity. Across the country, organizations are increasingly recognizing that progress is achieved when advocates, attorneys, researchers, treatment professionals, and affected individuals work together toward common goals. The spirit of collaboration was evident in nearly every session and conversation.

We were also pleased to make several valuable professional connections. Conference attendees had the opportunity to network with researchers, including a graduate student researcher who committed to assist FAC. We also spent time with NARSOL’s legal staff to talk about our forthcoming legal challenge – the effects of which will hopefully be felt nationwide. These relationships help strengthen the national movement and create opportunities for future collaboration.

One particularly exciting development came from attorney Gilbert Schaffnit, who coordinated a gathering of attorneys attending the conference. The group discussed creating an ongoing forum to meet regularly, share ideas, brainstorm litigation strategies, coordinate advocacy efforts, and support one another’s work on a national basis. This type of collaboration has the potential to strengthen legal challenges and reform efforts across the country.

Speaking of Mr. Schaffnit, FAC was honored to present the Jeanne Baker Humanity Award to attorney Gilbert Schaffnit in recognition of his extraordinary commitment, dedication, and service to our community. Gilbert’s advocacy, leadership, and willingness to stand alongside impacted individuals embody the very spirit of the award.

Several conversations reinforced that FAC’s public relations and media outreach efforts are gaining attention and support from organizations in other states. As more groups recognize the importance of changing public perception through education and strategic communications, opportunities for collaboration continue to grow. If you’re not following us on social media or subscribed to our newsletters (I guess by virtue of you receiving this you are – so get others to), please follow us, subscribe, like and share our posts.

For those who were unable to attend, there is good news. NARSOL intends to make conference session recordings available on YouTube in the coming weeks. We will notify members as soon as those recordings become available. Conference packets and materials will also be shared as soon as they are scanned and formatted.

Finally, we invite all members to join us for this week’s Monthly Membership Call this Thursday, July 2 (call in information is below). We will facilitate a NARSOL Conference Recap, sharing highlights from the conference, discussing emerging trends in the movement, and answering questions from members. If you could not attend the conference, this will be an excellent opportunity to hear about the key takeaways and learn what’s happening around the country.

Thank you to everyone who was able to represent Florida at the conference and to all our members who continue supporting our mission. The movement for reform is growing, collaboration is increasing, and FAC remains at the forefront of the fight.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-06-30-NARSOL Conference Recap, National Momentum, and Membership Call appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

Recently, we’ve seen a noticeable increase in registration compliance operations across Florida.

In just the past few weeks, FDLE and local law enforcement agencies have conducted multiple large-scale compliance sweeps targeting registrants all around Florida. In Jefferson County, “Operation Spring Cleaning” resulted in five arrests. In Hernando County, “Operation Black Horizon” targeted 52 registrants and resulted in 13 arrests. Jacksonville had 29 arrests in “Operation Checkmate” 24 in Alachua County. And the list goes on. The arrests are generally resulting from unreported internet identifier accounts and vehicle information.

It seems to us at FAC that these operations reflect a broader statewide enforcement initiative. Whether it’s coincidence or that Tallahassee has given a strong message to the Counties that they need to round up more registrants, the message in this week’s update is that law enforcement agencies are actively scrutinizing compliance, so we want to remind everyone to be especially vigilant.

Review all vehicles and confirm the tag information on file is accurate. Review all email accounts and internet identifiers. Review every app on your smartphone. Check social media accounts, gaming accounts, cloud storage accounts, and any other services that may require reporting. If you create a new account, report it immediately. Keep records of your registrations and updates. If you register something in person, review the paperwork before you leave the sheriff’s office to ensure everything is on there and accurate and if you register something through the cyber-communication portal, make sure you print out the pages or take screenshots of everything you’ve updated. Keep your paperwork somewhere accessible and give a copy to someone you trust for safekeeping.

As far as the violations, we’ve received reports from members about just how easy it is to become unintentionally non-compliant. One member renewed a vehicle registration online and was issued a new license plate number (every 10 years or so the state replaces the plate with a new one and issues a new tag number). Because the new plate was mailed by DHSMV via regular postal mail, he did not know the number had changed until it arrived. He immediately reported the new plate after receiving and putting it on his car, but was nevertheless arrested of violating the requirement to report the change within 48 hours – even though it took longer than 48 hours for the plate to be mailed to him.

We’ve also heard from members who were arrested for Google Drive, and other services that are automatically provisioned when a Gmail account is created, even if the person never intentionally signed up for or used those services. The registry has become so complex that compliance can hinge on details many people don’t even know exist. If they had that account for years without using it, they are charged with multiple violations for the same account, one for each re-registration they came in to report and failed to report it.

Please take this seriously! If you have any doubt whether something should be reported, consult with your registration office, with FDLE or an attorney familiar with registration requirements. Then make sure you get the response in writing or write down the name of the person you spoke with, and the date and time that you spoke with them. Use the template we provided to request a declaratory statement!

The consequences of an alleged registration violation can be severe, even when there was no intent to conceal information. These things may seem petty, but it’s a third-degree felony that comes with a mandatory minimum sentence. Even if you are ultimately acquitted of the violation, the mere arrest prevents you from ever being removed from the registry.

So stay informed. Stay vigilant. Stay compliant.

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-06-23-Compliance Checks and Registration Enforcement Across Florida appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Dear Members and Advocates,

One of the realities of living on the sex offender registry is that many registrants and their families exist in a perpetual state of heightened awareness. We know that the public registry does more than publish information. It creates opportunities for unknowing violation, harassment, intimidation, threats, and, in many cases, violence.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Just months ago, Florida witnessed another tragic example of registry-fueled vigilantism when a Central Florida man used information obtained from the public sex offender registry to locate and murder a registrant. Had he not been caught, he had a hit list to follow. The incident served as a stark reminder that public registries do not merely disseminate information, as lawmakers suggest. They function as roadmaps for individuals intent on harassment, intimidation, or violence. That case reinforced what advocates such as FAC, researchers, and even some law enforcement officials have warned for years: public registries can become tools for private citizens seeking to take the law into their own hands.

As troubling as traditional vigilantism is, a new and even more dangerous phenomenon has emerged. As highlighted in a recent investigation by the New Yor Times, across social media platforms, a growing number of self-styled “pedophile hunters” have turned vigilante confrontations into entertainment. These individuals pose as minors online, arrange meetings with targets, and then livestream or post videos of confrontations for audiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands. What makes this trend particularly alarming is that it has evolved from vigilantism into a business model.

The New York Times found that many of these online vigilantes are building substantial followings on social media platforms and monetizing their content through advertising revenue, subscriptions, donations, sponsorships, and platform payouts. The Times documented more than 170 reported violent attacks by self-described “pedophile hunters” since 2023, with some participants openly using increasingly aggressive and sensational tactics to attract viewers and grow their audiences. The investigation found that violence itself has become part of the content strategy, helping videos go viral and generate additional revenue.

This should concern everyone, regardless of their views on the registry. In a society governed by the rule of law, criminal investigations are supposed to be conducted by trained law enforcement officers operating within constitutional boundaries and subject to judicial oversight. Vigilantism bypasses those safeguards. It encourages public accusations, trial by social media, and punishment without due process. It creates incentives for mistakes, false accusations, and escalating violence.

Since when are private citizens allowed to manufacture criminal investigations for public consumption? Imagine applying the same logic to any other offense. We would never tolerate private citizens arranging their own drug buys, livestreaming confrontations with suspected drug dealers, conducting amateur raids on alleged crack houses, or pulling motorists over in their personal vehicles for speeding. We do not allow citizens to impersonate law enforcement, create their own criminal investigations, and then profit from the results. Yet somehow, when the allegation involves a sexual offense, people (and law enforcement officers) are willing to suspend these basic principles. The notion that private citizens should be allowed to manufacture alleged crimes, conduct vigilante investigations, and profit from them would be considered absurd in every other context. It should be no less absurd here.

When money enters the equation, the problem becomes even more severe. A private individual engaging in a law enforcement operation motivated by a belief that they are protecting the public is dangerous enough. A person motivated by clicks, subscribers, advertising revenue, and online fame is operating under an entirely different set of incentives. The more shocking the confrontation, the more views it receives. The more views it receives, the more money it generates. In that environment, the line between public safety and entertainment quickly disappears.

Yet today, social media platforms are allowing an ecosystem to develop in which private citizens can build audiences and generate income by publicly confronting, humiliating, and sometimes physically assaulting other human beings. That is not law enforcement. It is not justice. It is content creation.

FAC has long warned about the dangers created when public registries encourage citizens to take enforcement into their own hands. The rise of monetized vigilantism demonstrates how those dangers are evolving in the digital age. What was once an isolated act of harassment has become an online industry, complete with followers, influencers, revenue streams, and incentives for ever-more-extreme behavior. If public safety is truly the goal, we should be discouraging this behavior, not creating opportunities for people to profit from it.

Last week, we shared that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is seeking public comment on possible amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines. This presents a rare opportunity for members of the public to advocate for greater proportionality and fairness in federal sentencing. One area deserving particular attention is the treatment of online sting cases, which now represent a significant portion of federal sex offense prosecutions. While the law properly punishes those who engage in illegal conduct, the guidelines often fail to distinguish between an individual who was actively seeking out minors online and an individual who never sought contact with a minor but responded to a fictitious persona created by someone else. Whatever one’s views on these offenses, there is a meaningful difference in culpability and dangerousness between a person who is deliberately hunting for children online and a person who becomes involved only after the opportunity is affirmatively (and often aggressively) presented to them on an adult dating app. The sentencing guidelines should recognize that distinction.

Another guideline provision ripe for reconsideration is the ubiquitous two-level enhancement for “use of a computer” that is found in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6). When that enhancement was adopted decades ago, internet access was far less common than it is today. today, virtually every communication, transaction, and interaction occurs through a computer, smartphone, or internet-connected device. As a result, the enhancement applies in nearly every case and does little to distinguish between more and less serious conduct. In fact, one could reasonably argue that someone who travels to a secluded location to exchange contraband in person is engaging in conduct that is at least as deliberate and clandestine as someone who accesses material online. Yet the guidelines automatically increase punishment simply because a computer was used. Enhancements are supposed to identify aggravating factors that make an offense more serious than the ordinary case. When an enhancement applies to nearly every case, it ceases to serve that purpose.

As the Sentencing Commission considers reforms, we encourage our members to take this opportunity to encourage the Sentencing Commission to take a closer examination of these provisions and advocate for guidelines that better reflect actual culpability, risk, and proportionality.

And finally, we are still in desperate need to raise funds for our forthcoming challenge to the Florida Registry. We inadvertently omitted the link to donate from our last weekly update, so we are prominently including it here. CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE FLORIDA REGISTRY. This case is being fast-tracked and we absolutely need your help today, so please contribute what you can and let’s win this thing!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee

TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS: New for 2026 Tax Return.  You can claim the Standard Deduction PLUS a tax-deductible donation of up to $1,000 for singles and $2,000 for married without itemizing.  For more information on Tax Deductible donations in any amount, contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org or leave message at 833-273-7325 Option 1.

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-06-16-When Vigilantism Becomes a Business appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).