Florida Action Committee Files Landmark Federal Constitutional Challenge to Florida’s Sex Offender Registry Laws
Boynton Beach, Florida — August 11, 2026 — The Florida Action Committee (FAC), a statewide nonprofit organization advocating for evidence-based criminal justice policies, today announced the filing of a sweeping federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s sex offender registration and restriction scheme as unconstitutional.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Case No. 4:26-cv-00388-MW-MJF), the lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Mark Glass, along with fifty counties and municipalities that enforce additional residency and presence restrictions. The complaint argues that Florida’s registry has evolved far beyond its original purpose as a public notification system and now functions as a system of perpetual punishment that violates multiple provisions of the United States Constitution.
FAC Spokesperson Teresa Bond explained, “this is not just another challenge to one law or one ordinance. This case asks the courts to recognize what has become increasingly obvious over the past three decades: Florida’s registry is no longer a civil regulatory system. It has become a lifetime system of punishment that reaches far beyond any sentence imposed by a judge.”
The lawsuit alleges that Florida’s registration scheme, together with the network of local ordinances adopted throughout the state, imposes severe and continuing restrictions on where individuals may live, travel, work, and even be present. It further alleges that the cumulative effect of these laws amounts to banishment, perpetual supervision, and punishment long after individuals have completed their court-imposed sentences.
Among the constitutional claims raised in the lawsuit are allegations that Florida’s laws violate:
- The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment;
- The Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively increasing punishment;
- The fundamental constitutional right to interstate travel;
- Due process through vague and undefined criminal prohibitions;
- The First Amendment by restricting protected speech in public places.
Unlike prior litigation that has challenged individual provisions of Florida law, this lawsuit takes a comprehensive approach by asking the court to evaluate the registry as it exists today – not as it existed decades ago when courts first considered these issues. The complaint details how repeated legislative amendments have transformed Florida’s registry from a recordkeeping system into one of the most restrictive registration schemes in the nation.
The complaint also documents the practical consequences experienced by FAC’s members, including widespread housing instability, barriers to employment, restrictions on family life, obstacles to travel, and high rates of homelessness created by overlapping state and local residency restrictions.
FAC emphasized that the lawsuit does not seek to excuse criminal conduct or diminish the seriousness of sexual offenses. “People who commit crimes should be held accountable” explained Bond, “but once a sentence has been imposed and served, the Constitution still matters. Public safety and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive. This lawsuit asks the courts to reaffirm that there are limits on how far government may go in continuing to punish people long after they have paid their debt to society.”
The organization noted that the litigation has been developed over many months with the assistance of nationally recognized constitutional litigators and is expected to address legal questions that have never before been presented together in a single challenge to Florida’s current registry system.
As with any major constitutional litigation, FAC expects the case to proceed through multiple levels of judicial review before a final resolution is reached.
A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CAN BE READ HERE: FAC v Glass ET AL
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

My adrenaline is pumping like never before, FAC you are angels!!! This is so good, id say its pretty much a CHECKMATE!!! Its gonna take time to run its course, but this is the blueprint that will be used all over the country to make real change. Several states have already agreed with the ex post facto, now you have put together a master piece for everything else. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!!
I didn’t read anything about internet usage and registering “internet identifiers” and that whole vagueness. Or is that simply covered under free speech and 1st Amendment? Just curious.
Wow. Just wow. Let’s see the state try and justify this without facts
Don’t forget the blatant obfuscation of FDLE in just trying to get some relatively simple definitions and rules explained that required going to court and still not much better clarification. Their hemming and hawing tells me they want it both ways, meaning they want to leave all possibilities open specifically for the sake of punishment for any perception of a violation and defining or clarifying anything would pin them down in later cases.
I think FDLE is left hanging on a lot of this. These laws are written so vaguely that no wonder no one can answer questions.