The public “sex offender” label has become an invitation for vigilantism. The risk to property, to innocent family members, and to the community is real. Combining the label with a person’s identity and location invites mob justice. Residences become targets. Families become collateral damage. Wives, husbands, children, parents, and neighbors all bear the consequences.

No other class of people is expected to live under the constant threat of a crowd outside their front door. We see it over and over, and over again. This label results in harassment, assaults, arson, murders, and countless cases of mistaken identity around the world. Public registries don’t simply “provide information”, they create targets and invite further harm.

The UK registry is not public – yet an online rumor led to this lynch mob. Here in the US, names, photos, addresses, and vehicle information are all publicly accessible.

The United States has now witnessed countless documented cases of people on the registry being harassed, assaulted, shot, beaten, set on fire, and even murdered simply because their names and addresses were made publicly available. Family members and innocent bystanders have also been threatened, harmed or killed as collateral damage..

At some point, can the government honestly continue to describe the registry as a “public safety tool”? The growing body of evidence suggests it’s a system that predictably facilitates violence. FAC suggests it’s a government-sponsored hit list.

END THE REGISTRY!

The post UK: This is what it means to live with the “sex offender” label. appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

A significant number of seats in both the Florida Senate and Florida House of Representatives are open because the current office holders are term limited or resigned.

These elections provide a rare chance for fresh voices, new ideas, and meaningful conversations about the issues that matter most to all of us – the sex offender registry implementation, outcomes, and lack of public safety effectiveness.

Open-seat elections give voters the chance to:

The candidates elected to these seats could be serving in Tallahassee for many years – 8 or even 16 years. The conversations voters have today can influence the policies of tomorrow.

There is no substitute for meeting candidates in person, attending forums, participating in town halls, or speaking with them directly at community events.

Ask candidates:

Candidates often remember the people they meet during campaigns. Those relationships can become valuable connections once they are elected and begin making decisions that affect their communities.

Senate Open Seats
Senate District 8 (Brevard, Volusia) – Candidates include Jake Johansson
Senate District 14 (Hillsborough) – Brian Nathan just won in March 2026.
Senate District 16 (Hillsborough) -Candidates include Fentrice Driskell and Michele Rayner
Senate District 21 (Pasco) – Candidates include Pasco County Sheriff
Senate District 22 (Manatee, Sarasota) – Candidates include James Buchanan
Senate District 26 (Palm Beach) – Candidate includes Rick Roth and David Silvers
Senate District 28 (Collier, Hendry, Lee) – Candidates include Lauren Melo
Senate District 30 (Palm Beach, Broward) – Candidates include Lauren Book
Senate District 34 (Miami Dade) – Candidates include Ashley Gantt

House Open Seats
House District 2 (Escambia, Santa Rosa) – Candidates include Jon Fay
House District 6 (Bay)
House District 10 (Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Union, Alachua) – Chase Brannan, the son of Chuck Brannan is running
House District 12 (Duval) – Candidates include Terrance Freeman
House District 13 (Duval) – Candidates include Audrey Gibson
House District 21 (Alachua, Marion) – Candidates include Malik Moore and Xavier Monroe
House District 31 (Brevard) – Candidates include Robyn Hattaway and Marcus Herman
House District 37 (Orange, Seminole) – Candidates include Robert Prater
House District 38 (Seminole) – Candidates include Emily Duda Buckley and Marcus Hyatt
House District 42 (Orange) – Candidates include Felipe Sousa Lazaballet, Eskamani-backed
House District 43 (Orange) – Candidates include Samuel Vilchez Santiago
House District 47 (Orange, Osceola) – Candidates include Jorge Figueroa and Anthony Nieves
House District 51 (Polk) – Candidates include Hilary Holley and Edwin Perez
House District 55 (Pasco) – Candidates include Walter Price
House District 60 (Pinellas) – Candidates include Lindsay Polega-Quigley and Melissa Rutland
House District 62 (Hillsborough, Pinellas) –Candidates include Kyandra Darling, Wengay “Newt” Newton
House District 63 (Hillsborough) – Robin Lockett running is a friend of Rep. Hart
House District 64 (Hillsborough)
House District 67 (Hillsborough) – Candidates include Luis Viera
House District 68 (Hillsborough) – Candidates include Ryan Gill
House District 71 (Manatee)
House District 74 (Sarasota)
House District 78 (Lee)
House District 82 (Hendry, Collier)
House District 85 (Martin, St. Lucie)
House District 100 (Broward)
House District 102 (Broward)
House District 108 (Miami Dade)
House District 109 (Miami Dade)
House District 113 (Miami Dade)
House District 116 (Miami Dade) – Ashley Perez-Biliskov, the sister of Danny Perez, is running.

Too often, voters wait until after candidates are elected to share their concerns. Open-seat elections provide a valuable opportunity to engage before anyone takes office.

Now is the time to introduce yourself to the people seeking to represent you. Attend a candidate forum. Visit a campaign event. Send an email. Ask questions. Listen carefully to the answers.

The legislators elected in these open-seat races will help shape Florida’s future. Make sure they hear from the people they hope to serve before the ballots are cast! GO for it! We represent about 100,000 voters in Florida – we can be a voting block.

-The FAC Legislative Committee

The post Florida’s Open Seats: Now Is the Time to Make Your Voice Heard appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

The post Jay puts off decision whether to hire sex offender as city manager indefinitely appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

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

The post FAC Weekly Update 2026-07-07- If a Registry Case Returned to the Supreme Court appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

These municipal agencies are responsible for maintaining public infrastructure. Workers would provide services such as; Maintaining and repairing roads, streets, and sidewalks. Snow plowing and ice removal during winter. Collecting leaves, brush, and sometimes garbage or recycling, Maintaining public buildings and municipal facilities, Repairing and maintaining water and sewer infrastructure, Caring for parks, trees, and other public spaces, Installing and maintaining street signs, traffic signals, and streetlights. And maintaining municipal vehicle fleets and equipment.

You can vote on this poll at: https://cnycentral.com/news/local/poll-should-high-risk-sex-offenders-be-hired-to-work-in-the-dept-of-public-works

The post NY: Poll: Should ‘high risk’ sex offenders be allowed to work for the Department of Public Works? appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Earlier this year, the brave named registrants and their attorney, Janice Bellucci from ACSOL, successfully challenged a law that required they post a “no candy or treats” sign at their house on Halloween. Now the State wants the Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court’s decision. Here’s why we’re not particularly concerned.

Each Term, the Supreme Court of the United States receives approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari, yet grants and hears oral argument in only about 60 to 70 cases. That means fewer than 1% of all petitions are accepted for full review. The overwhelming majority of petitions are denied without any comment on the merits.

Is this Halloween sign such a matter of national significance that it’s worthy of the court’s attention, especially in light of the social science showing that there’s no increase in instances of sexual offending on Halloween?!? We think not. We also believe that if, defying the odds, the Court does decide to take it up, the issue is strong enough that the registrants will prevail anyhow.

So if Missouri wants to dig in their heels and fight a nonsensical, useless, Halloween sign ordinance to the Supreme Court, we say good luck with that!

You can read Missouri’s petition for Writ of Certiorari here: Sanderson Halloween Certiorari

The post Missouri asks SCOTUS to review Halloween sign decision appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Here’s the background for those who don’t follow our site: Bruce Henry was convicted in federal court of possessing child pornography in 2013. After serving his prison sentence and completing treatment, he married and later had a son. Alabama law permanently prohibited him from living with his own child simply because his conviction qualified as a “sex offense involving a child.” There was no hearing, no individualized risk assessment, and no mechanism for relief.

Henry challenged the law, arguing that it violated his fundamental right as a parent. The Trial Court agreed, the original 3-Justice panel of the 11th Circuit agreed. But then, without any apparent request, the entire panel of the 11th Circuit decided to rehear the case of it’s own volition, which raised a lot of anxiety among all registrant parents in the 11th Circuit (which includes Florida). If the court said it’s ok for Alabama to create a law that says a registrant can’t live with their own children, certainly Florida (and possibly Georgia) would follow suit.

The case was heard and it took a while for the 90+ page opinion to come out, but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, agreed with one critical point: Parents on the registry do not lose their constitutional status as parents simply because they have a qualifying conviction.

The court repeatedly emphasized that the right of parents to live with their children is one of the oldest and most fundamental liberty interests protected by the Constitution. The court rejected Alabama’s argument that people convicted of certain sex offenses simply do not possess the fundamental right to live with their children. Instead, the court held that all parents possess this constitutional right. Registrants are not excluded from that protection simply because of their conviction.

If the government wants to interfere with that right, it must satisfy strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review. That is a monumental shift. Previously, Alabama argued that registrants never possessed the right in the first place. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that premise outright.

Another important outcome is that the opinion repeatedly criticizes Alabama’s use of an “irrebuttable presumption”. Essentially an irrebuttable presumption assumes a fact is always true and does not allow the affected person any opportunity to prove otherwise. In simple terms, the government has already made up its mind, and no amount of evidence can change the outcome. “All persons required to register can’t…” “Every person on the registry is prohibited from …” without any exception, petition process, appeal, etc. (See where this is going – and where it can potentially help in other cases?).

The court explained that American history has never supported automatically stripping parents of custody or cohabitation rights based solely on past misconduct. Historically, courts made individualized determinations focused on the child’s present welfare—not permanent categorical bans. That reasoning could become extremely important in future registry litigation.

For FAC members (and all registrants in the 11th Circuit) who have children, this decision is extremely encouraging. It establishes several principles that future courts will have difficulty ignoring. First, being on a registry does not eliminate constitutional rights. Second, the government cannot simply label someone a sex offender and by virtue of that label declare they have no protected liberty interests. And third, Courts must treat parental rights of registrants with the same constitutional seriousness afforded to every other parent (in other words, “registered sex offenders” can’t be treated as a separate class of persons).

All that said, the court did not invalidate Alabama’s statute. Instead, it sent the case back so the lower court can determine whether Alabama’s law can actually survive strict scrutiny (a much harder test). The court acknowledged that protecting children is unquestionably a compelling government interest, but explained that the Constitution requires more than a blanket lifetime prohibition — it requires determining whether the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.

From FAC’s perspective, this is an important constitutional milestone. For decades, legislatures have often enacted registry laws based on categorical assumptions — that everyone on the registry presents the same level of risk and should therefore be subject to the same restrictions. The Eleventh Circuit just rejected that approach in the context of one fundamental right. We now have a case to cite when it comes to other fundamental rights.

The opinion can be read here: Bruce Henry En Banc Opinion

The post Big Win in the 11th Circuit! En Banc Decision in Henry Came Out Today. appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Whether that support comes through a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, recovery program, treatment provider, civic organization, veterans’ group, peer support network, or any other healthy community, the principle is the same: people are far less likely to succeed when they are completely isolated. If our goal is safer communities, we should be encouraging healthy support systems — not discouraging them.

For many people of faith, this is not merely a matter of compassion; it is a matter of obedience. One of the most widely known communities in Florida to embrace this philosophy is Matthew 25 Ministries, a community in Pahokee that provides housing for people on the registry. This comes not from financial opportunity, but from biblical commandments. “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat… I was a stranger and you invited me in… I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:35-36) When asked when they had done these things, Jesus replied: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40) For some, these are not merely inspirational words. They are commands from a power with much more authority than politicians or law enforcement, from God.

Throughout history, countless religious congregations have believed they have a biblical duty to minister to those whom society rejects. They may not condone a person’s past actions, but they believe every human being possesses inherent dignity and the capacity for redemption. To many believers, God’s command to love one’s neighbor, show mercy, visit those in prison, and welcome the stranger carries greater moral authority than public opinion or pressure from those who would prefer permanent exclusion.

Recently, two news stories highlighted this very tension. In Australia, the Christian Brothers defended their decision to continue housing elderly convicted offenders, explaining that they believed their religious mission required them to care for even those who had committed grave offenses while maintaining appropriate supervision and accountability. Rather than abandoning vulnerable individuals, they viewed providing housing as part of their Gospel obligation. In Virginia, a church faced intense criticism after employing a man who had completed his sentence for a sexual offense committed decades earlier.

Reasonable people can disagree about this topic, and every congregation should establish appropriate safeguards and exercise sound judgment. But the broader question remains: Should people who have completed their sentences be forever excluded from the very institutions that are best equipped to help them live stable, law-abiding lives? The evidence suggests the answer should be no.

Research consistently demonstrates that social support is one of the strongest protective factors against future offending. Stable housing, employment, treatment, family relationships, community involvement, and positive social connections all reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Isolation, hopelessness, homelessness, and rejection have the opposite effect.

Ironically, many of the very things we know reduce risk have themselves become viewed as suspicious. If a registrant seeks counseling, redemption, community, self-improvement, or just a closer connection to a higher power, people inherently assume his or her motivation is suspicious.

We have created an environment in which nearly every positive step toward rehabilitation is interpreted as something sinister. That serves neither justice nor public safety. No one is suggesting that faith communities abandon common sense or ignore legitimate concerns when they arise. But there is a profound difference between exercising appropriate caution and insisting that a person be permanently ostracized from every source of support.

People rarely rebuild their lives in complete isolation.

At FAC, we believe that safer communities are built not only through accountability, but also through opportunity. We should encourage every positive influence that helps someone remain stable, connected, employed, housed, treated, and hopeful. Whether that support comes from a pastor, rabbi, imam, therapist, sponsor, mentor, or simply a caring group of people committed to accountability and personal growth, healthy relationships matter.

A community that encourages accountability, compassion, and successful reintegration is safer than one that relies solely on exclusion. Whether you are religious or not, or whether you belong to any religion or none, perhaps Matthew 25 still has something to teach us — not just about mercy, but about what genuine public safety really looks like.

Please share this with your faith-based community and ask them to share it with their congregants.

The post When Compassion Becomes Suspicious: The Role of Faith Communities in Reintegration appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

Darien Lombrana is accused of using social media to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, and embarrass” a registered sex offender, according to court records.

The sheriff’s office said she posted about the family “over and over” on social media sites and community pages. Additionally, court records show she posted their address online with the intent to cause harm.

The victims in the case admitted to ABC13 that the man is a registered sex offender, but said the alleged harassment has impacted the entire family. They tell ABC13 that it includes children who were born decades after the man was placed on the registry.

SOURCE

The post TX: Woman charged with harassing sex offender and his family, sheriff’s office says appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).

In Florida, a registrant who inadvertently forgets to report a vehicle tag or another registration requirement is subject to a mandatory minimum and can never be removed from the registry. Why are unknowing or unintentional technical mistakes by registrants treated more harshly than knowing and intentional misconduct by the officials responsible for enforcing the law?

FAC has long maintained that accountability should apply equally. If the registry is as important as lawmakers claim, then those who administer it should be held to at least the same standard as those required to comply with it.

SOURCE

The post The Double Standard Is Hard to Ignore appeared first on Florida Action Committee (FAC).