FAC Weekly Update 2025-12-15-Registry Crosses the Line from Regulation to Restraint
Weekly update for December 16, 2025. This is recording number 344.
Dear Members and Advocates,
The Clements case currently pending in the Middle District of Florida asks the question, “whether [] residency restrictions, considered in combination with the registration and reporting requirements” render Petitioner “in custody” for purposes of filing a habeas corpus petition. On July 9, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the dismissal of Clements’ case (by the lower court) was premature because the Court did not consider the restrictions on sex offenders’ residency when determining that Petitioner was not “in custody”. The case was remanded back to the District Court and in August the Court ordered the parties to conduct research until November 14, 2025 and within 30 days thereafter “Respondent shall brief the Court on whether Florida’s sex offender rules—the residency restrictions combined with the registration and reporting requirements—render a petitioner “in custody” for habeas purposes, even when the petitioner is no longer in physical custody.” Yesterday, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections – the Respondent in the Clements case (2:24-cv-00294 MD/FL) filed his Brief and within 21 days, attorneys for Clements will file theirs.
The Clements case is extremely significant because it takes a step towards recognizing what courts have long avoided admitting: that modern residency restrictions can be so severe and so liberty-limiting that they constitute “custody” for purposes of federal habeas jurisdiction. This case has the potential to be a game-changer.
For decades, courts relied on Smith v. Doe’s description of 2003-era registration as a “nonpunitive,” passive, informational system to conclude that registrants were not restricted or supervised in any way. But Clements argues that today’s residency rules resemble probation-like restraints, often forcing individuals into homelessness by restricting where and how they can live. If the courts conclude that the residency restrictions impose sufficient liberty restraints to qualify as custodial for habeas purposes, the case could open the door to a new avenue of constitutional review – one that would allow registrants to challenge the legality, proportionality, and retroactive application of these burdens.
Let’s take a step back and revisit the foundations of sex-offender registration law and examine how far modern registration and residency-restriction schemes have drifted from what the U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). In Smith, the Court repeatedly emphasized that the registry (in 2003) was passive, informational, and minimally intrusive. Registrants in Smith did not face in-person reporting for minor life changes, presence exclusions, broad employment bans, driver’s license markers, or as relevant here; residency restrictions. The Court stressed that Alaska’s law imposed “no physical restraint” and involved only the “simple” act of providing accurate information “promptly” when it changed. Smith, 538 U.S. at 100–101. The Court explicitly relied on the fact that registrants were “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens,” id. at 101, and that the law did not resemble “probation,” “parole,” or any “affirmative disability or restraint.” Id. at 100–02. These statements are the backbone of the Smith decision—but they no longer describe the modern registry.
today’s conditions bear no resemblance to that 2003 baseline. Florida now requires multiple in-person reporting requirements (at least 2 or 4 times a year), immediate (within 48 hours) reporting of virtually any change in information, registration for temporary travel of 3 or more days, and compliance with highly technical rules that can produce felony charges for trivial or unavoidable mistakes. And, of significance here, residency restrictions. If Clements prevails in proving that residency restrictions render him tantamount to being “in custody”, it undermines the core premise of Smith—that registrants are “free to move where they wish”—and signals a judicial recognition that modern registration has crossed the line from regulation into restraint.
Now that the Respondent has filed his brief, Clements’ attorneys will file theirs. We would like to acknowledge and express our sincere appreciation to those of you who have submitted declarations in support of Clements’ argument. The physical constraints imposed by state-level residency restrictions are not merely inconvenient—they are severe, pervasive, and fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful notion of being “free to move where we wish.” We are confident that Clements will demonstrate that reality clearly and conclusively. If HB 45/SB 212 is enacted, it will only further expose the extent of these restraints by expanding the State’s reach into where people may live. And when those state-level restrictions are layered with increasingly restrictive county and municipal ordinances, the cumulative effect becomes undeniable: the freedom the Supreme Court once assumed exists no longer does. At that point, the argument is not simply reinforced—it is unavoidable, and it may well mark the end of the legal fiction that modern residency restrictions are anything other than punitive.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To me and this is strictly my opinion. Fixing the registry is easy:
1. Anyone whose offense date was before October 1997 — No Registration
2. Depending on Offense date, you are only subject to the rules at that time.
3. Ability to get off should be based on tier of offense
a. 3rd degree or under — 5 years clean
b. 2nd degree —– 12 years
c. 1st degree —— 18 years
4. If adjudication withheld —- no registry
5. If arrested but no charges filed or they are dropped. Should not effect your ability to be removed.
Seems pretty easy to me. Also would free up LE to chase the bad guys and the govt to focus more on preventing offenses through education and community policing of teachers, coaches, ministers, family members etc where we know 95% of new offenses happen.
Once again my opinion only.
Tearful
I was pre 1997 by 6 years, but yet, here I am 29 years later still on the registry. Crime was 1991 so that was 35 years ago, come next month.
There you go i too was way before 97′ We, under my logic would be free men.
Tearful
I cannot believe this but when my crime happened, I was in my 20s, now in my 60s. That tells you something. It was late 20s but still that’s a 4-decade spread and yet still being told all of us are dangerous and just itching to re-offend.
An elephant may or may not charge at you if you piss it off, maybe they should be on a registry, JUST in case.
I’m pre 1997. I like your comment. It holds logic and reason.
Broke my heart to be retroactively forced to re register when I moved to Florida.
Broke me mentally and emotionally and financially.
Verbal death threat from neighbors really touched my soul.
I look back at my sentence and it said 10 years registry. That was hard enough. Now I’m lifetime registry. It doesn’t make sense.
0 recidivism and 0 thoughts of any criminal behavior for me. I bet I’m not the only one who feels/thinks the same way.
BenFranklin
And the reality is, we will NOT commit another sex crime, however, we do have a high chance of getting arrested. Hear me out, not because we messed up, but because of the ongoing new add-ons to the registry making it almost impossible sometimes to comply. Especially with all the retroactively applied laws, rules and ordinances that sometimes are forced on all of us.
And although some of them are not applied to existing registrants, it is only a matter of time before they find ways to get around that. For example, the post FAC made about internet identifiers. One little misstep on that and your clean record is wiped out. Traps, trips potholes are getting harder and harder to avoid.
We all know the outcome here. The courts have long ruled that resident restrictions are constitutional, and the other part are constitutional. I doubt they find the combination rises to the level of punishment. The 11th Circuit kicked it back because of a non-inclusion not because of it arising to the level of “in custody” If the lower court rules that it does not rise to the level of “in custody” then the case is DOA back at the 11th circuit.
Sorry but is it not the registry ending case we need. We need a commonsense judge to make a commonsense ruling. The 11th circuit to agree with that commonsense ruling and then SCOTUS to reverse itself, which it rarely does.
If you know the outcome, you shouldn’t waste your time on this forum. Find something productive to do elsewhere.
For the rest of us… no, we don’t know the outcome here. If the 11th wanted to kill the case they could have killed the case. In Clements I they were reluctant to affirm and now, in Clements II he has a viable argument and competent counsel (a Yale professor).
Nobody claimed this case to be “registry ending” the issue here is whether SORRs arise to the level of “in custody”. If yes, and Habeas applies, people have another avenue to challenge registration conditions and requirements. That is the only win here. Not to end the registry.
If you are commenting on the article, FAC stands behind this case 1000%.
Wow, that was kind of stiff given I have been following and given to FAC for over 7 years. So, in the spirit of Christmas and all that it stands for I will keep my response professional. But I will say this, I am very much appreciative of the efforts FAC puts forth and have indeed thanked them numerous times for everything they do; both on here and in direct emails to Gail C. and Val J. I have also emailed House and Senate members both when called upon. So maybe you are being a bit rough on me. I was simply stating my opinion based on being on this journey for almost 20 years: 19 years and 11 months to be exact.
I am not saying Clements does not have a strong argument; he does. I am only making statements based on past rulings from Florida courts, COA’s and SCOTUS who are too afraid to right the wrong that was done, has been done, is currently being done, and will be done by the Does case of 2003.
The only COA that stood against that ruling was the 6th Circuit in the Does case out of Michigan from 2016. As I am sure you know, the PFR’s there are still fighting the case because every time they win. The legislature re writes the law and the fight starts again.
We have a Supreme Court Justice who said the legislature should not have a “Blank Check” when it comes to SORNA and yet here, we are.
To your last comment, I stand behind Clements and pray he wins. SORNA is clearly unconstitutional is used by states and those that run them for two reasons, Power, Votes and Money. I guess that was three.
I hope you post this and if you would like me to no longer comment on here, I will not but nothing I said was wrong, not in line with current and past court rulings etc.
I’ve also learned that when arguing about the registry in a courtroom, it’s not the argument, it’s whether or not they feel like granting your motion. You could make all the sense in the world and get struck down and you can also make no sense and have success.
agree…they use the catch all phrases “public safety” & “to protect the children”.
Billy
They did what they said they would do, “Make a way to get off the registry”. Problem is, depending on the judge (Who gets the final say) the odds are very slim. I have been on the registry since 1997, retroactively, and my sentence has long, long passed.
I guess I am a lifer. But even dying doesn’t take down your photo automatically. I have seen numerous people who died years ago, and they are still on the registry. What purpose does that serve?
B, C, and CJ —– and that was the point of my original comment that got rather harshly critiqued
tearfuleagle, very sorry you got bashed for your comment. I felt it was spot on! And don’t you dare refrain from posting comments. This is what this is about. tossing ideas around, brainstorming, think tank type stuff.
It’s one thing to toss ideas around. It’s another to say “we all know the outcome here”. We obviously don’t or we would not be putting our efforts into what we do. It’s also misleading our readers to say “this is not the registry ending case we need” when this case has nothing to do with ending the registry.
There are people behind this organization who put in a tremendous amount of work to improve the lives of registrants. If anyone knows better or can do better. Have at it. Please do! But if you’re not going to, there’s no reason to come on here and knock the efforts of others.
@FAC
And even if we lose, I always appreciate the efforts made by F.A.C and the lawyers that take on the cases. I see personally injury lawyers every day on the tv talking about the millions they have won for people in injury cases, but criminal and other types of lawsuits are not “no recovery, no fee”. That is mostly because the injury lawyers almost always only take on cases that are slam dunk verdicts.
All of us get disappointed when we lose another round that should be a victory, but the blame cannot be placed on F.A.C and the lawyers, it is the courts, judges and law makers who just do not want us to ever live free again for the rest of our lives. To me, that is just dog gone hate if you ask me.
Even though some of us do not always agree in here, we ALL need to stand united and not give up.
God bless F.A.C and all they do for us. If not for F.A.C I would not have anyone to share with, as I am not going to get my family upset or talk registry law with neighbors, friends etc as that is not a topic most of us want to discuss even with our families as they are already upset about the restrictions effecting everyone in the household.
Let’s do like the ball coaches do on tv, to motivate the players and say, “Go give them HELL”.
I was shy as a kid and bullied, but now as an old codger, I do not give up, even when discouraged. At least I am not in prison anymore. I always say if you can survive prison, there is nothing you cannot do. (Other than get off the registry in Florida)
CJ, totally agree about FAC. The only person I talk to about stuff is my 89-year-old pop. I spend every Saturday and most Sundays, with him just making gemstone jewelry for fun. The cabbing machine we use may be older than him lol. TBH my own therapist does not know. I just try to apply what he is giving me in the other areas and apply it to this stuff as well. He asked me on day one how I could fix what’s broken. I said, “I don’t know doc, I gave you the ingredients, you are the chef: you bake the cake.”
I agree with you 100%. I too have been playing this game since 02/25/2007 on a 1989 conviction. Long enough to know that some fancy words will not magically resolve the issue. I’ve learned the hard way that it’s not really about what’s legal. Every single valid argument has been thwarted by the catch all phrase “public safety”. So, although hopeful, I’m still quite doubtful.
People forget this argument can be fought in another USDC and CCOA. 11th is not binding to the rest of the nation. I pray Clements wins here so the FLA AG can think on their next steps, carefully, since the 11th is more than FLA.
Actually I think the President is ready to repeal SORNA and end the registry.
The President signed executive order to de criminalize THC.
Why not end the registry?
Ben
Not to at all be a jerk but where in the Hell did you come up with that. A HUGE different between allowing legal pot and releasing 100,000 people off of the registry. The U.S population would burn down entire cities if that happened.
Only a powerful and important judge and ruling is going to end this. They could at least give us a life line and start with those like me and others that were “Retroactively” applied to the registry.
Finally note, correct me if I am wrong but where did you even come up with that? Did you hear him or his staff or a comment online of him throwing in the possibility to give us relief? Not even sure he has that power. Congress would have to sign off on it, or possibly a binding executive order?
CJ, I think he was being sarcastic.
In the interest of steering this discussion back on topic, let’s all agree that drug reclassification is very different from registry removal.