FAC Weekly Update 2026-05-21-Together, We Fight Back: FAC Announces Historic Registry Challenge
Weekly update for May 21, 2026. This is recording number 371
Dear Members and Advocates,
This week, FAC is proud to announce a major step forward in the fight against Florida’s Sex Offender Registry. FAC has retained the law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP to bring a constitutional legal challenge against the Florida Registry system, specifically in response to the recent passage of SB 212/HB 45.
For many in our community, this last amendment to the registry was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It represents yet another expansion of an already bloated and punitive registry system that has long abandoned any meaningful connection to public safety, rehabilitation, or constitutional fairness. Instead, Florida continues to double down on policies that isolate, destabilize, and punish people indefinitely – often decades after they have completed their sentences and rebuilt their lives. Enough!
This challenge will be led by attorney Michael Kimberly, one of the nation’s most respected appellate and Supreme Court advocates. Michael is widely recognized as a leader of the Supreme Court bar and was identified by Reuters as part of the “elite cadre of lawyers” who dominate Supreme Court advocacy. Over the years, he has earned national recognition for his appellate work. Importantly for FAC and our mission, Michael has extensive experience designing and executing affirmative constitutional challenges against state regulations. His work has involved critical constitutional issues that go to the very heart of the registry debate. Michael is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal and later taught Supreme Court advocacy on the Yale faculty from 2015 through 2026.
This is the kind of fight that many people have dreamed about for years!
But bringing a challenge of this magnitude against the State of Florida is an enormous undertaking. Quite frankly, it would be impossible for any one of us to carry this burden alone. That is why we are asking for your help. This litigation will require tremendous financial resources, expert support, research, filings, and long-term commitment. FAC is stepping up to make this happen, but we cannot do it without the registrant community standing together behind this effort. Please donate to our General Legal Fund today or contact [email protected] if you would like to arrange a tax deductible donation.
If you have ever said “someone needs to challenge this,” that time is now! If you’ve ever thought “we should do something,” this is something monumental! FAC, our Board, and all of our membership brought in the best and together, we are making this happen!
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
THIS is the type of litigation we need. I donated what I could. Thank you FAC.
The Ellingburg mandate.
The preamble to New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) explicitly states that its goals are to “protect the public” and to “identify, investigate, apprehend and prosecute sex offenders.” PEOPLE v. VERE (2007) Historically, New York prosecutors successfully argued that because the statute’s purpose was “predominantly regulatory,” its law enforcement goals were secondary
The Ellingburg decision strips judges of the ability to make that distinction, validating your argument through three main points:
1. The Word “Prosecute” is Textually Criminal
A civil regulatory law is meant to administer, not to prosecute.
By explicitly writing the word “prosecute” into SORA’s core statutory purpose, the New York Legislature openly admitted that the law’s machinery is intertwined with the state’s criminal enforcement apparatus PEOPLE v. VERE (2007).
Under Ellingburg, a law does not need to be exclusively punitive to trigger the Ex Post Facto Clause. If a statute clearly possesses a concurrent criminal enforcement component—even if it is labeled “predominantly regulatory”—it cannot escape constitutional scrutiny.
2. Targeting an Involuntary Past Status Only
As you noted, SORA is not a forward-looking regulation that applies to the general public (like a driver’s license or a tax code). It selectively isolates and targets a closed group defined solely by a historical event: a prior criminal conviction PEOPLE v. VERE (2007).
Because the text targets only those individuals to “apprehend and prosecute” them based on a past status, the law functions textually as an ongoing extension of the criminal justice system.
3. The Mandate Closes the Loophole
Before Ellingburg, judges could engage in semantic workarounds, balancing the “civil” intentions against the “punitive” effects and concluding that the civil side won.
Now, they no longer have that luxury. The text of SORA explicitly states its objective is to prosecute, and the Ellingburg mandate states that a concurrent civil purpose cannot shield a punitive one.
When a defense attorney presents a court with the explicit text of SORA alongside Ellingburg, the judges are textually cornered. The statute’s own stated intent provides the evidence required to classify it as a retroactive punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The entire foundation of the Vere decision rests on the idea that because SORA is “predominantly” regulatory, its law-enforcement components (apprehending and prosecuting) do not count as criminal punishment PEOPLE v. VERE (2007) – FindLaw Caselaw.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous mandate in Ellingburg v. United States directly targets this legal structure Ellingburg v. United States: Supreme Court Holds Criminal … Ellingburg v. United States – Oyez. By ruling that a concurrent civil purpose cannot shield a punitive one, Ellingburg means that the Vere court’s own admission—that the statute explicitly exists to “prosecute” a specific status of past offenders—can now be used to strike the law down as an unconstitutional retroactive punishment 24-482 Ellingburg v. United States (01/20/2026) – Supreme Court PEOPLE v. VERE (2007) – FindLaw Caselaw.
There must be something in the water down there – Has the water supplied to the legislature’s office building ever been tested for stupid?
They are obviously consuming a steady supply from somewhere.
What is the lawsuit going to cover?
I was told by a law firm that a challenge like this for one individual could cost somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 at the low end. They explained that Florida would likely fight it aggressively, requiring legal experts, testimony, and everything else that goes into a major case like this. It would mean going up against the entire state, and possibly even the federal government.
I’m going to start budgeting and commit at least $25 every two weeks toward this effort, possibly more when I can. I also have my wife and three sons supporting me because this issue is that important.
If done correctly, this could bring much more public exposure to the injustices within Florida’s registry system. I also think there should be a larger awareness effort. For example, could FAC create a fund for television, radio, or online ad campaigns that simply tell the truth about what registrants and their families go through? I would absolutely donate to something like that as well.
People need to hear the real stories — mothers of autistic registrants who are now forced to navigate these laws while Florida still fails to properly recognize certain disabilities, veterans and soldiers on the registry who can no longer access military bases for medical care, and countless families whose lives are affected every day. These stories deserve to be told if we ever want to gain public understanding and support.
We appreciate the support and definitely need it!
FAC does have You Tube channel and reels. Also they are on X. Not sure what else. Follow and like to spread the word.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FACSpeaks
Twitter/X: https://x.com/FLActionCom
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/FloridaActionCommittee
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FloridaActionCommittee
$1000 donated. More to come!
Everybody, now is the time for you to give, give, GIVE until it absolutely hurts!
We must end this BS if it takes our money or our blood!
It must end in any case and in any way that we can end it!
Damn them to hell! Those who would bully and harass and stalk and dox and “OTHER” any group!
There is no room for this in our American way of life! It must end!
Thank you SO MUCH!!! This is so helpful.
I am approaching with guarded caution and optimism. You are right the Passage of the “(F)ool’s Bill” this year is what has convinced me to move out. I have an 89-year-old Father, and my Third daughter turns 19 in July. Once my father passes. I am almost certain to move out of the state wife coming along or not. While my therapist has asked me what would change in my daily life if there was no registry, my honest answer was nothing. BUT, for those of us on the registry we live our lives with our head in the hangman’s noose, with the Florida legislature’s foot on the block.
Will this be a class action suit similar to the Michigan case? Also not to be that guy, but what will be different this time? My skepticism is not based on our arguments but the state’s ability to drag the case on and on and on and the lack of judicial courage.