FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-07- If a Registry Case Returned to the Supreme Court
Weekly update for July 7 2026. This is recording number 380
Dear Members and Advocates,
Last week, the 2025-2026 term of the Supreme Court of the United States ended. We posted a summary of what cases had been decided during that session and what relevance they have to sex offender registry issues. We noted that it’s been a long time since the Court had taken up a true registry challenge and we hope that our forthcoming case will be the one to make it there.
The response to last week’s post and to our forthcoming lawsuit was great. Many of you asked the same questions, “If a major constitutional challenge to sex offender registration laws reached today’s Supreme Court, how would the justices vote?” and “What is the likelihood that the Supreme Court would overturn Smith v. Doe?” In this week’s update, we’ll share our thoughts and some of our strategies, and we’ll make a plea to our members and other advocacy groups who might read this update to please support our challenge.
Of course, no one knows how any Justice might feel about a “sex offender case” that comes before it. Supreme Court justices are notoriously difficult to predict, and any attempt to handicap a future case is just that – an educated guess. But looking at each justice’s judicial philosophy can offer some clues.
Justice Clarence Thomas has increasingly emphasized the Constitution’s original meaning and our nation’s historical understanding of punishment. His recent concurrence in Elligburg suggests he is less interested in what lawmakers call a law and more interested in what it actually does. If modern registry laws resemble historical forms of punishment such as banishment, public shaming, or continuing government supervision, Justice Thomas may be willing to take a hard look at whether they are truly “civil.” He even called out Smith v. Doe, suggesting its analysis was wrong.
Justice Neil Gorsuch has consistently demonstrated a healthy skepticism of government power and a strong commitment to individual constitutional rights. He has not been afraid to side with criminal defendants when fundamental constitutional protections are at stake. In the 2019 case Gundy v. United States, Gorsuch issued a powerful dissenting opinion (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas) arguing that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Attorney General to write his own criminal code. His focus on liberty and constitutional text could make him receptive to arguments that today’s registry laws have crossed constitutional boundaries.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is also an originalist. Her opinions often begin with history and tradition. If presented with compelling evidence that modern registration schemes impose disabilities that resemble historical punishments, she could prove to be an important voice on the Court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a wild card. He generally respects precedent but has also shown a willingness to recognize when circumstances have changed. Given that he, himself, was embroiled in sexual abuse allegations, we often see that people accused sometimes push back the hardest to distance their own allegations. It’s the “how can I be a sexual abuser when I’m obviously so strongly against the issue?” attitude, that might be in his mind. Justice Samuel Alito is a concern. He has traditionally deferred to legislatures on matters involving public safety. He would likely be among the more difficult votes for challengers to secure.
The Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson present an interesting question. While they often vote to protect individual rights in criminal cases, they also place considerable value on precedent. Whether they would be willing to distinguish today’s registry laws from those considered in 2003 remains to be seen. A couple of really promising facts lead us to believe these justices might be on our side. First, there was the Ortiz case, which was a case the Supreme Court decided not to take up, but that Justice Sotomayor felt compelled enough to write an opinion on regardless. It was a residency restriction case in which she indicated she strongly felt a residency restriction was unconstitutional. She also suggested it was “a matter of time” until the Court took up such a challenge. Since our forthcoming case is based primarily on residency restrictions, this just might be the case she was waiting for.
Then there’s also Justice Brown Jackson, what influences our positivity on her position also doesn’t come from a case the Supreme Court heard, but on her confirmation hearings. During the confirmation hearings, several senators scrutinized her sentencing decisions in child pornography cases, arguing that she had imposed sentences below the advisory guidelines. Justice Jackson responded that these cases require judges to evaluate the unique facts and circumstances of each defendant, rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. That philosophy could become significant in the context of sex offender registration laws, where broad statutory schemes often impose identical restrictions on people with vastly different offenses, risk levels, and decades of offense-free conduct. If presented with a challenge to registry laws, Justice Jackson may be receptive to the argument that treating every registrant the same, regardless of individual circumstances, raises serious constitutional concerns. She may be skeptical of legal regimes that fail to distinguish between individuals and instead rely on blanket rules that apply equally to everyone. Another issue that will be prominent in our challenge.
And then there is the Chief Justice. John Roberts occupies a unique place in this discussion because, before joining the Supreme Court, he was the attorney who argued Smith v. Doe on behalf of the government before the Court. It is fair to assume he understands that case as well as anyone. At first glance, asking Chief Justice Roberts to rule against the position he once argued might seem like a monumental task. But perhaps it isn’t.
Throughout our advocacy, we’ve constantly thought in the perspective of “overturning Smith v. Doe”, but that might not necessarily be what we’re looking to accomplish here. The comparison many people make is to the Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. We don’t think that’s the right comparison. Roe involved the same medical procedure outcome in 2022 that it involved in 1973. The legal debate centered on constitutional interpretation, not whether the underlying facts had fundamentally changed. An abortion is an abortion. Same today as it was 50 years ago. But registry laws are different. The registry that the Supreme Court reviewed in Smith v. Doe is not the registry that exists today. The underlying facts have fundamentally changed.
When the Court upheld Alaska’s registry law in 2003, it repeatedly emphasized features that it believed demonstrated the law was regulatory rather than punitive. The Court noted that registrants remained free to live and work where they wished. There were no residency restrictions. There were no exclusion zones that effectively banished people from communities. There were no driver’s license markings. No passport identifiers. No internet identifier reporting. No extensive in-person reporting requirements. No restrictions preventing someone from entering parks, libraries, or countless other public places. The Court also believed the law imposed only a minimal affirmative disability or restraint.
Can anyone honestly say that describes the registry today? Today’s registrants face residency restrictions that contribute to homelessness. Registrants must report repeatedly, in person to sheriff’s offices, throughout the year. They must report vehicles, internet identifiers, travel plans, temporary lodging of three days, employment changes, volunteer activities, higher education enrollment, and a growing list of life events. Public websites provide detailed personal information that can lead to harassment, vigilantism, housing discrimination, and employment barriers. Entire categories of public places have become effectively off limits under state and local laws.
In other words, the 2003 Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe evaluated one animal. Today’s Court will be asked to evaluate something very, very, different. That distinction matters. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to “overturn” Smith v. Doe to provide meaningful constitutional relief. In fact, even though we might not agree with that decision, one of the strongest legal arguments may be that Smith was decided based on the Alaska law that existed in 2003, but that today’s registration systems have evolved so dramatically that Smith simply does not control the outcome anymore. Asking Chief Justice Roberts to recognize that reality is very different from asking him to admit he was wrong twenty-three years ago.
When introducing a new “registry case” to the Supreme Court, we are asking the Justices to acknowledge what every registrant, every family member, and every advocate already knows; that the registry of 2026 is not the registry of 2003. And when that case reaches the Supreme Court, we believe that difference may become the most important fact in the courtroom.
Of course, none of this will happen unless the right case is brought before the Court. That’s why FAC has retained attorney Michael Kimberly to lead our forthcoming constitutional challenge. Michael has argued nine cases before the United States Supreme Court, giving him the experience and credibility needed to navigate a case from the trial court all the way to the nation’s highest court. If there is an opportunity to present the strongest possible challenge to today’s registry laws, we believe there is no one better suited to lead that effort. But litigation of this magnitude is expensive, and it cannot succeed without the support of our members and our sister organizations. If you believe the time has come to ask the courts to recognize that the registry of today is not the registry considered in Smith v. Doe, please consider making a donation to FAC’s general legal fund. Every contribution, regardless of size, helps move this historic challenge one step closer to the Supreme Court and we need your help now more than ever.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve only ever dreamt of seeing big guns take on a fight like this. Will be donating more asap.
Sincerely appreciate it!
Im saving for the donation at end of this month. Child got sick but trying give 100 than 30 a month to 50 after that
Take care of your kids first. Appreciate the donation. We know that some people can contribute more, some less and that’s OK. Some give $5 and that might as well be thousands given their financial situation. Every bit helps. Some can’t give anything at all, but they volunteer, they make phone calls, they help spread the word to others, and that’s super valuable to FAC also.
At the end of the day, we’re all in this fight together and none of us would ever be able to make this happen on our own. We, together – as Florida Action Committee – are making this happen!
Anita is supposed to get back to me for volunteering. Yes in the military your as strong as your weakest link but together that link is the strongest!!keep the fight everyone counts! Every story and dollar counts
I think you fight a worthy battle and I am willing to contribute again. Is there a special fund designated for this? I am also willing to throw my hat in the ring to allow my case and circumstance to be used as well if it will help. While perhaps maybe not the main case my case does have some unique qualifiers that could potentially be useful. Including who my wife is and some of our past efforts with the ACLU and different courts, some of which have been publicly documented by and published by state congresses.
Just going to throw this out there. What if one of these justices’ child, or relative was forced to register, I wonder if that would change their mind on the justification of placing people on a registry for life or on one at all.
We don’t wish that upon them and don’t count on it happening.
I have been saying for years that there’s no point in trying to overturn Smith v. Doe and that it would be better to argue that it has been legislated obsolete within months of that opinion being released. No state registry bears any resemblance to the 2003 Alaska registry in any way beyond its title. Nice to see someone finally getting that.
Dustin
Even if the registry stands (We want it ended) but even letting a few off the registry is not just hard to do but can cost people $1000s of dollars that some cannot afford. And if you lose your case, you not only lost your money, but was not removed. Depending on the state, the judge and the charges, it is a flip a coin scenario on who can get removed.
These paths to be removed keep going back and forth. Like in Florida recently, the registry went again from 20 years to be removed, to 25 years again. It is like a tennis match with the ball going back and forth over the net numerous times. Most who do get removed have a very low chance of re-offending.
The change was not recent, Cherokee, it was in 2007.
FAC-3
I was referring to them recently changing it back to 25 years after it being lowered to 20. I was set to get removed and they changed it back to 25 years. So now I have 3 more years until I can try.
It is obvious that the law makers do not want us removed from registration and are only complying because a few judges ordered there has the be a path off the registry. But that path could be any number including 40 years off paper if made to be so with legislation.
And furthermore, there are people who are eligible but just do not have the funds to pay a lawyer for a hope and a pipe dream based on a judge that may or may not allow you freedom. It took me three times to finally get my probation ended and that was only because the third time I got a different judge who was more willing to take the chance.
Cherokee,
They changed it to 25 years from 20 in 2007. It wasn’t lowered to 20 from anything, that’s where it started and it wasn’t changed back to that.
No judges ordered there has to be a path off the registry. The removal provision (943.0435(11)) was created by the legislature.
FAC
Well then how did I go in at 20 years just two years ago? I got denied but judge agreed I was eligible at the 20 year mark, he just didn’t want me to be removed. I was given a chance to go back before the judge in 2 years later but then they changed it to 25 years so I have to wait 3 more years to try a second time. If you do not believe me, you know the lawyer I used, he’s on your web site.
I can not speak for anyone else but I was not the only one who got to get a chance at 20 years just recently as I was in the courtroom with them.
There are two elements (1) you must qualify, and (2) the court must find that you don’t present a threat to public safety. Even if you petition after 25 years there’s no guarantee that the court will find you meet the second element. I don’t know the specific facts of your underlying offense, but your timeline is mathematically impossible.
Since only someone committed and offense or who was still on probation in 1997 was placed on the registry, and the pre-amendment required 20 years offense and sanction free, the earliest ANYONE could have petitioned was 2017 (20 years after 1997, presuming they got off all sanctions in 1997). The amendment took place in 2007 (moving it from 20 to 25 years).
So your claim that you petitioned and then they later moved it to 25 years is impossible. So no, respectfully, I don’t believe you are correct and it’s important for us to correct misinformation so that nobody else here relies on it.
Cherokee did you already go in front of a Judge to get off the registry? MY BF did and was denied. In 2024. His charge was from 1992. (The State Attorney told the Judge he would do the crime again) He has been off probation since 2004. No other arrest. Not even a ticket. He is Law abiding citizen, Owns home. Has a job. Pays taxes. What I don’t understand is his plea deal. His plea deal did not include being on a Registry. No mention of it. How is that Constitutional? He did not plea deal to a Registry. His plea was for Jail time and probation. Not everything else that has been added for the last 22 years. For FAC, This new court case, is it going to take years before it goes to court? And than be thrown out? We have lost so much hope.
What I get from reading post from FAC stay positive. Please tell us HOW.
Connie, The case will be filed within the next couple months. I don’t know why you’d assume it will be thrown out. We’ve had numerous cases in which we’ve prevailed. You stay positive by reading about the wins.
I am not assuming, I am skeptical due to waiting so long on the Ex Post Facto 1 and 2 cases. Wasn’t that case fom 2018. And supposed go to court July 2026. And it was thrown out? On this new court case. If this prevails, is this only for Persons listed on this case that it will help? Are the Attorneys looking for plaintiffs?
First, these cases take time. This is federal litigation. It’s how it works. Ex Post Facto 2 was filed on 2/04/2021 and closed on 3/27/2024. We won. That’s about two years from filing to relief. Pretty short, considering. Ex Post Facto 1 is still pending. True it was filed in 2018 and that’s a very long time, but during that time it was dismissed, appealed to the 11th Circuit where it was remanded, has gone through another dismissal and the amended complaint is still pending.
At the end of the day if we didn’t file these admittedly time consuming, burdensome, complaints, whether the “Ex Post Factos”, “Internet Identifier”, “Municipal”, etc. our lives would be a whole lot more miserable and burdened than they are now, so thank God we don’t listen to the skeptics! We just do the work and hope it eventually pays off.
This new case will help ALL of us, just like ALL our cases do. We don’t file cases to alleviate one individual’s circumstances.
We are not looking for plaintiffs. What we are looking for is support. Support in the form of financial contributions to our General Legal Fund. Support in the form of declarations from people who are affected by the new law. And support in the form of encouragement from people who believe in what we do, are grateful for the 7-days a week, ass-busting we put into helping families (including yours, Connie) on the registry.
Connie
Yes I was denied. My charges were in 1991, 35 years ago and not a single mess up since. But that was at the 20 year mark and I am re-applying at the 25 mark. And yes, you can re-apply if denied, if the judge says you can try again and that is exactly what I will do. I certainly don’t want to die on the registry.
It’s even worse than just the cost of petitioning for removal and the high risk that politics will change. Consider this:
1) You spend the money to petition for removal.
2) You get a decent judge and are successfully taken off the registry.
3) Fantastic news, right? Time for champagne and celebration?
Not so fast. A new law gets pushed through and passed — one that is not retroactive in name but effectively puts you back on the registry anyway. Surprise. No refund, and you’re right back where you started.
Or worse: you’re never even informed of the change. Since you’re now a “free man,” you don’t think to keep checking for updates. Then one day the police knock on your door with handcuffs and tell you you’re back on the registry.
You might think this scenario can’t happen — but many people who were never sentenced to the registry are on it today. They’ll tell you otherwise.
Bottom line: Never trust the government.
History lesson: James Madison — one of the Founding Fathers and a champion of free speech — was already locking people up and confiscating their property for exercising that very right less than eight years after the Constitution was signed.
The point? Even the Founding Fathers were willing to ignore the Constitution when it became inconvenient. So don’t expect any more integrity from today’s politicians and judges.
You’re saying that someone was ordered removed from the registry by a Florida court, then required to re-register without having re-offended?
When was this?
Once you are removed, you would only be placed back on if you re-offend.
You believe that? I know you had to spill coffee all over your new keyboard just typing that funny.. is that like the “your only on the registry if it was part of your sentencing guidelines?” Or how about your only on the registry for 5 I mean 10 I mean 25 whoops I meant life? …the list of only until ifs is a bit long to believe in tooth fairy, Santa, and easter Bunny’s now don’t you think? There’s country’s trying to put four year olds on the registrys..these lunatics have no morals, no limits, and absolutely zero accountability..
It’s not about belief. No one has shared with us any instances in which someone was reinstated after they were ordered removed by a Florida court. Not unless they re-offended. If you have info on any cases to the contrary, we want to know about them.
Yes. And it’s not belief. It is FACT! If the answer is so “obvious” to you, why don’t you cite to one (1) case where a person was removed from the Florida registry and then put back on without committing a subsequent sexual offense? One case.
Also from the time the removal provision was enacted in Florida until the 2007 amendment it was Twenty (20) years. Not 5, not 10. TWENTY! That’s fact. You can review every version of Florida Statute 943.0435(11) through 2006 and it was twenty. In 2007 the removal provision was changed to twenty-five (25) (effective July 1, 2007. Chapter 2007-209, ss. 2, 15, Laws of Florida). That has not changed since 2007. If you have the obvious answers, please cite to anything contrary.
We have enough of a burden challenging misinformation from outsiders, we shouldn’t have to challenge it here. It’s also important that those who read our site (including the comments) are armed with FACTS, not misinformation.
I counter with a more simplistic prediction based on reviewing sex offense cases before SCOTUS since Kansas v. Henricks.
Conservative justives will rule against us. Liberal justices may or may nor vote in our favor, but they will most likely rule in our favor.
I wrote about then when RBG passed away:
https://once-fallen.blogspot.com/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-what-her.html
Derek, I know I am not as versed in this stuff as you, but given Justice Thomas’ Thoughts in Ellingburg, and Justice Gorsuch “Blank Check” statement in the Rankin case I believe it was and Justice Keagan Not taking the Snyder vs Does Case out of Michigan points to at least 3 possibly in our favor. I also believe Justice Kavanaugh would rule for us as well, as I believe he would have been the 5th vote to Gundy a victory.
Just one man’s 21 years on the registries opinion. 🙂 FAC great write up and do we know when the new case will be filed.
I do agree with you working within the military seeing the atmosphere we just need a case to now get to SCOTUS and for them to pickup. With all restrictions since 2003 added would be totally different arguments being presented
Clearance Thomas voted in favor of the State in Smith v. Doe.
Gorsuch ruled in favor of the state on Does. v. Shurtleff when he was a circuit court judge.
And Ellingberg is not the panacea you think it is. In fact, the ruling specifically cited the case as being different than this case. In Ellingberg, the state admitted the issue at hand was punitive, so there was not argument that it was regulatory, unlike in Smith v. Doe, where the State argued the registry is regulatory and not punitive. I do not believe we can use Ellingberg to argue against the registry.
But the registry that the Supreme Court reviewed in Smith v. Doe is not the registry that exists today. The underlying facts have fundamentally changed, and today’s court will be asked to evaluate something different.
The Supreme Court does not have to overturn Smith v. Doe to provide meaningful constitutional relief.
Correct FAC -12. And In light of Justice Thomas latest comments, while not directly toward SORNA, they were directed to an overall view of Ex Post Facto laws, calling for a return to the Calder case.
Just because they voted years again a certain way, does not mean that will not look at the drastic changes and rule differently.
FAC-12 – Once again correct. SCOTUS could leave the SORNA intact but only require what was law at the time be applied. This could be a line-item review of Current SORNA vs First SORNA
Of course, all this is me opinion.
I believe they can say yes to us on some and no on other parts
Another reason why Justice Thomas I believe will vote for us that that “Real world application of the law is what is now important.” This registry is not your fathers Oldsmobile any more. If they just said the original law is enforceable but not the added stuff that would be huge milestone. Basically leaving in Place Smith V Doe, but….. removing everything that has been added on. I could see that as a real ‘Fix”
Great breakdown! That enlightened me a lot. That’s some exciting news and I’m looking forward to moving forward with this truck