Legal

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

In Commonwealth v. Richard Cox, the Circuit Court of Arlington County struck down Virginia’s sex-offender “loitering” statute as unconstitutionally vague, reinforcing a fundamental principle that is often forgotten when laws target registrants: constitutional protections apply to everyone. The Virginia law made it a felony for certain individuals on the sex offender registry to “loiter” within 100 feet of schools and

A great decision came out of the Michigan Supreme Court last week! Gary Shaver was convicted of sex offenses as a juvenile in 2004. At that time, Michigan’s sex offender registration law (SORA) required him to report address changes within 10 days. Years later, Michigan significantly expanded SORA in 2011. The new law imposed much stricter requirements, including requiring address