Legal

The State of Missouri, dissatisfied with their loss in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to take up the Halloween Sign Ordinance case. Earlier this year, the brave named registrants and their attorney, Janice Bellucci from ACSOL, successfully challenged a law that required they post a “no candy or treats” sign

Here it is… Hot off the press. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s En Banc (complete panel of the Court) opinion in the long-awaited Henry Case and from FAC’s perspective, the decision in Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County is a significant constitutional victory for parent registrants – even though it is not yet the final word. In short, the

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its 2025–26 term this week. While the Court did not directly decide a sex offender registration case, a few decisions from this term could have significant implications for future challenges to registry laws, supervision conditions, and government surveillance. For those following registry reform litigation, the most important development may have been the Court’s willingness to

There is encouraging news out of Oklahoma yesterday! In a lawsuit supported by NARSOL, a federal judge has denied the State’s motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Oklahoma’s law requiring certain registrants to carry driver’s licenses and identification cards stamped with the words “SEX OFFENDER.” The plaintiffs argue that forcing them to display this label every time they present

FAC encourages everyone to watch the archive video of oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Smith, a case that highlights the often absurd realities of registration compliance. The State alleges that Mr. Smith violated the registration statute by failing to report his “place of employment.” The problem? He worked for a cleaning company that assigned employees

On June 9, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case asks a simple but important question: What exactly is a “place of employment”? The case involves a registrant who worked for a cleaning company and was assigned to various job sites as part of his employment. Although he reported his employer, prosecutors argued that a