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.
Thank you, FAC. We are deeply grateful for your continued efforts take down this unconstitutional, harmful registry scheme. Watching with fingers crossed from Chicago.
The main issue is that the laws are so poorly written that even trained/seasoned law enforcement can’t interpret. Vague references, unenforceable, harsh penalties, etc etc
That is the intent, to be constitutionally vague in their language in hopes no one will challenge them either in committee, on either chamber floor, or post-signature becoming law. Those elected or appointed officials know what they are doing when crafting the laws. If they want to be so specific, then they can be, but push the boundaries until told “no”.
For everyone reading this. Hear my words. Now is the time to get off your butt and help. It doesn’t matter what you do, just do something. Iv been a FAC member for over a decade and never helped. But now it’s time to get my hands dirty so to speak.
I have volunteered to help this year. We have to step up now. As you can see this isn’t going to stop getting worse if we don’t step up and work towards Turing this back towards something that resembles sanity. Send money, send an email or something. Just don’t do nothing.
Yes it is. Make emails even if you can not make donations be heard to your local commissioners, legislators. I reached out personally to VFW in Miami they are getting back beginning of next week once back from feed the homeless drive already scheduled to talk with me about Miami-Dade and being their next focus. They didnt know about this tragedy there until I reached out personally. Emailed all VFW in area one response but hes Director of all the area!
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.
This has been a bit of a problem with the registry as a whole. Local law enforcement isn’t even trained in the law so it is all open to interpretation. If the cops can’t figure it out, how are we supposed to do the same?
Derek
I hate to say the truth, but some of them just make things up. That is why I moved 20 years ago, as the county I lived in were so harsh that even the strongest man on Earth would cry after leaving registration’s interrogations. And like I said, they made up the rules as they went along, daring any registrant to challenge them and am sure none of us did.
There was no FAC back then or really anyone to stand with us.
Derek,
I’m convinced it is intentionally vague so that they can prosecute anyone they have in their cross-hairs for any supposed violation. It doesn’t matter what the rules are, they want virtually everyone at risk so they can pick and choose who they want to take off the streets.
All you have to do to see the pattern is to look at their drug interdiction efforts. They target someone, then find a contextual basis to pull them over (crossing the white line, going to slow, too fast, following too closely, etc.). It doesn’t matter that a hundred other people are doing the exact same thing, because they’re not out there enforcing traffic safety, they’re going after SOMEONE.