FAC Weekly Update 2026-03-31-Follow the Money

Weekly update for March 31, 2026. This is recording number 362

Dear Members and Advocates,

After preparing this week’s Weekly update we received some bad news. We will start this week’s update with the bad news and then proceed to the weekly update that we intended to go out.

The “Ex Post Facto I” case that has been in litigation since 2018 has been dismissed… AGAIN! This case was originally dismissed by this District Court Judge, appealed to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the District Court, which has now dismissed it for the second time. Attorney’s for the “Doe” plaintiffs are not giving up and currently strategizing next steps, but it’s a hugely demotivating blow and the reasoning shows just how hard it is to win these cases.

At the core, the plaintiffs argued something most people can understand: the registry has become so complicated, constantly changing, and full of technical rules that people can end up facing serious criminal charges for honest mistakes—like forgetting to report something or misunderstanding a requirement. They said this effectively turns the law into a “gotcha” system, punishing people even when they didn’t knowingly do anything wrong.

The court didn’t buy it. It ruled that even if the system is confusing, prosecutors still have to prove that someone knowingly violated the law. In other words, the law is not strict liability. According to the court, if someone truly didn’t understand the requirement, forgot due to a medical issue, or was misinformed, those facts can still be used as a defense (though that will still result in someone NEVER being able to petition for removal – something the Court didn’t consider). Another catch is the burden is still on the accused to fight it out in court, and the judge wasn’t convinced the plaintiffs showed the law is fundamentally unfair on its face.

The plaintiffs also challenged specific rules, like having to report travel within 48 hours, reporting out-of-state trips, and other technical requirements, arguing they don’t actually make communities safer and don’t even work as intended. The court again sided with the state, saying these rules only need to have a reasonable connection to public safety – not be perfect or even especially effective. That’s a very low bar, and the court said Florida cleared it. Bottom line: the case shows that courts are still giving lawmakers huge leeway when it comes to registry laws. Even if the system is messy, inconsistent, or totally irrational in places, it will likely be upheld as long as the state can point to some public safety justification.

For people on the registry, that means the same harsh reality remains for now: you’re expected to navigate an extremely complicated and imperfect system perfectly and if you don’t, you may have to prove your innocence after the fact.

On to what we intended to begin with… In one of our posts last week, we highlighted a segment from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver examining online sting operations. In response to the post, many commenters pointed out that these “operations” (often given a cute name) are a huge revenue source for state and municipal governments, because the federal government provides substantial financial support to the agencies conducting them. As usual, we got some pushback from those on the opposite side of the argument. Fair enough. We welcome the debate. So, we decided to take a closer look using publicly available data, such as the U.S. Department of Justice Grants Portal, to see how much money flows down from the feds to support these stings. What we found is not surprising.

Federal funding plays a massive role in sustaining these operations. Agencies like the Office of Justice Programs distribute funds through programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program (ICAC). These funds go directly to state and local agencies (including sheriff’s offices, police departments, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement) to support enforcement efforts, including the kinds of sting operations discussed in the segment and the sex offender registry. FAC reviewed funding over the past five years and found that well over $100 million in federal funding is tied to these programs in Florida alone. And that doesn’t include money the agencies get from the State or municipal budgets, trust funds and other substantial federal funding sources.

The overwhelming majority – more than $96 million – comes from Byrne JAG funding. The Byrne JAG is the money the federal government conditions on a state’s “substantial compliance” with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which offers an explanation of why it’s so important for Florida to keep it’s registry numbers up (including keeping people who left the state or even died on its list). In other words, there is built-in pressure on the state to maintain and expand enforcement systems tied to the registry, or they risk losing that nice federal bonus.

So where does the money go? A large share flows directly to FDLE. That agency alone has averaged over $11 million per year in Byrne JAG money (2021 – $10,886,155 Award Number: 15PBJA-21-GG-00241-MUMU; 2022 – $11,281,154 Award Number: 15PBJA-22-GG-00656-MUMU; 2023 – $12,421,604 Award Number: 15PBJA-23-GG-02972-MUMU; 2024 – $10,717,097 Award Number: 15PBJA-24-GG-04224-MUMU). But local jurisdictions (some very small) also receive substantial Byrne JAG money. For example, in 2023, the Town of Eatonville, Florida (population: 2,356) received $1 million in Byrne funding (Award No. 15PBJA-23-GG-00713-BRND). (Side note: Eatonville is a small municipality with a unique demographic profile – approximately 75% Black, according to recent census data).

To be clear, federal funding for law enforcement is not inherently problematic and law enforcement is absolutely a necessary function. But when large sums of money are tied to programs that depend on continued enforcement activity, it’s reasonable to ask whether those incentives shape priorities. And it’s not just funding. These operations come with sensational news headlines and press conferences announcing arrest totals. But behind the branding and theatrics is a strong political motive and funding structure that rewards measurable outputs. And that’s the point. When the system operates this way, results are not just expected – they are necessary to justify continued funding.

To be equally clear, FAC is not anti–law enforcement. We recognize the critical role law enforcement plays, and we fully support legitimate efforts to prevent sexual exploitation and protect children. Our objective is the same: accountability and prevention. Where we diverge with respect to these “sting operations” is in the methods. Public safety is not advanced by tactics that blur the line between detecting criminal intent and manufacturing it. When operations rely on escalating otherwise lawful conversations, introducing illegality into something that was never headed there, or steering impressionable individuals toward conduct they were not actively pursuing, that raises serious concerns not just legally, but ethically. The same is true on the back end. A system that imposes lifelong consequences on individuals who were not seeking out minors in the first place and then places them under conditions that make lawful living nearly impossible, does not promote safety – it undermines it. When people are saddled with barriers to housing, employment, and basic civic participation, or placed in situations where ordinary conduct can trigger new violations, the result is instability, not rehabilitation. If the goal is to promote law-abiding behavior, it should be done through prevention – not by placing people in situations that increase the likelihood of failure.

The fact that John Oliver dedicated an entire segment to exposing sting operations is significant. The fact that the editorial roundtable on proximity ordinances (something we discussed in our last weekly update) even took place is equally important. And perhaps most encouraging of all is that the issues FAC and our sister organizations have been raising for decades are finally entering the mainstream conversation. That is real progress. These conversations are necessary, and they need to happen far more often.

We want to end this week’s update with an action plan for you. At the beginning of this year, FAC made a commitment to expand our reach beyond our immediate community. And in just the first quarter, we’ve made meaningful strides toward that goal, especially across social media. We now have an active presence on Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube. For those of you who can access these platforms (and we recognize many of you cannot, which is why we continue to provide audio versions of this message), we need your help. Follow our pages, engage with our content, and most importantly, like and share our posts.

Growth is not just about numbers – it’s about impact. The larger our network becomes, the more people we reach. And the more people we reach, the stronger and harder to ignore this message becomes. In the 60 seconds it takes to follow and share, you can play a direct role in driving awareness and meaningful change. That’s your directive. Now start clicking!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee