Legal

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

Attorney Janice Bellucci earned a significant win in Missouri last week, when a United States District Court Judge from the Eastern District of Missouri enjoined the Attorney General (or her Agents) from enforcing an ordinance that required registrants to display a sign that says “No Candy or Treats” on Halloween. This is a great culmination of a long fought battle

The case, Doe v. X Corp., involved minors whose sexually explicit videos were uploaded to social media platform X (formerly Twitter). According to the lawsuit, the victims and their families reported the videos to the platform, but the content allegedly remained online for days before eventually being removed. The plaintiffs argued that X should be held liable because it knowingly