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.
This is a very strong and ambitious complaint, and FAC deserves credit for framing the issue the right way: the constitutional question is no longer whether a basic sex-offender registry is permissible, but whether Florida’s modern system has accumulated so many restrictions that it has crossed the line from civil regulation into punishment.
The strongest part of the complaint is the factual record. FAC does not merely argue that these laws are burdensome; it documents the combined effect of state and local residency restrictions, presence restrictions, repeated in-person reporting, travel limitations, speech restrictions, homelessness, family separation, employment barriers, and geographic exclusion from major population centers. That is critical because the State will almost certainly rely heavily on *Smith v. Doe* and the Eleventh Circuit’s *McGuire v. Marshall*. FAC’s strongest response is that those decisions addressed materially different regulatory schemes and that Florida’s system in 2026 has evolved far beyond the notification regime examined in *Smith*.
I would add another constitutional principle to this discussion that I believe deserves greater emphasis: **finality**.
Our constitutional system has long recognized that punishment is supposed to have an endpoint. In *Ex parte Lange*, the Supreme Court explained that once a defendant had fully suffered the punishment authorized for an offense, the government’s power to punish further was exhausted. The Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses likewise reflect the broader constitutional principle that government cannot continually reopen the punishment for completed conduct simply because it later decides that the original consequences were not severe enough.
That principle fits this case particularly well. A person can be convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, complete probation or supervised release, pay restitution and every other obligation imposed by the sentencing court, remain law-abiding for decades—and nevertheless face new restrictions enacted years or even decades after the offense. At some point the question must be asked: **When does the punishment end?**
This does not mean that every collateral regulatory consequence of a conviction is unconstitutional. But it makes the distinction between legitimate civil regulation and continuing punishment critically important. If Florida’s restrictions have become punitive in substance, then finality matters enormously. The State should not be permitted to accomplish legislatively, year after year, what a sentencing court could not do directly: continually add new punishment to a sentence that has already been completed.
The First Amendment and vagueness claims are particularly strong. A law that prohibits a registrant from communicating with a minor in a park, playground, or public pool without requiring any unlawful purpose sweeps directly into protected political, religious, and ordinary speech. Likewise, vague terms such as “loitering,” “congregating,” “regularly congregate,” and “vicinity,” particularly when violation carries criminal penalties, create serious fair-notice and arbitrary-enforcement problems.
The Eighth Amendment and Ex Post Facto claims are potentially the most consequential, but they are also the most difficult because FAC must first overcome existing precedent treating registration laws as civil. The strongest way to do that is to keep emphasizing cumulative effect. Florida’s present system is not simply a registry. It is **registration plus lifetime supervision, exclusion from housing, exclusion from physical presence, advance travel reporting, repeated in-person appearances, marked identification, speech restrictions, overlapping local ordinances, and felony punishment for violations.**
One area I would strengthen in responding to the defendants is the distinction between the statewide scheme and each individual defendant. The State, counties, and cities will likely argue that no single defendant is responsible for the entire combined system. FAC should therefore maintain the cumulative-punishment theory while also clearly identifying which member is injured by which ordinance and which defendant can redress that injury.
I would also avoid allowing the defense to turn this into an all-or-nothing facial-challenge case. Even if the court questions whether every provision is unconstitutional in every conceivable application, FAC should preserve narrower and as-applied alternatives.
Finally, I believe this litigation could benefit substantially from one or more amicus curiae briefs. The most useful amici would not simply repeat FAC’s legal arguments. An empirical brief from criminologists, registry researchers, or former corrections officials could address recidivism, aging, housing stability, homelessness, supervision, and whether exclusion zones actually improve public safety. A separate historical brief could address banishment, exile, shaming punishment, parole-like supervision, and the historical importance of finality once judicially imposed punishment has been completed.
Overall, this is a serious and thoughtfully constructed challenge. The decisive issue may ultimately be whether the court evaluates each restriction in isolation or looks at what Florida has actually created when all of these restrictions operate together.
And perhaps the most fundamental question underneath all of it is this:
**If a person has served the sentence imposed by the court, completed supervision, satisfied the judgment, and lived lawfully thereafter, does the Constitution permit the government to keep adding new punitive burdens to that completed sentence indefinitely?**
That question of finality deserves to be front and center.
Mark, please rest assured that we have very competent counsel who know what they are doing.
Thank you all for the work getting the Councel and Legal helping find the correct attorney who understand the daily life now of all PFR!!!
Absolutely, and I hope my comment wasn’t taken as questioning the competence of FAC’s counsel. That was not my intention at all. I think the complaint itself demonstrates that a great deal of careful legal and factual work has already gone into this case.
My comments were offered from the perspective of someone directly affected by these laws and who has a strong interest in the success of this litigation. I was looking at areas where additional research might complement what counsel is already doing—particularly the cumulative evolution of Florida’s registry, the empirical research concerning residency restrictions and recidivism, the concept of finality once a sentence has been completed, and the possibility of independent amicus support.
For me, these issues are also not theoretical. I experience the cumulative effect of these laws in ordinary life and employment.
I work as an independent contractor and travel to different jobsites to perform legitimate work. I may be sent to an office building to install cubicles or furniture, for example, without having selected the location myself. In a county such as Brevard, the existence of geographic presence restrictions means I have to be concerned not merely with where I live, but with whether I can lawfully enter or remain at or around a particular jobsite.
That becomes even more difficult when the restricted geography is capable of changing. Brevard, for example, has established a process through which qualifying private businesses can self-certify for inclusion within its definition of a park, around which the county applies its buffer-zone restrictions. That means determining the legal geography of an ordinary work assignment can involve much more than simply knowing where the obvious schools, public parks, playgrounds, and daycares are.
As a practical matter, when I receive a job assignment, I have to consider questions that an ordinary independent contractor never has to consider: Is there a daycare, school, park, playground, or other covered location near this office building? Has a nearby private business become a covered location? Where exactly does the buffer begin and end? Does an employment exception apply to my particular circumstances? Can I safely accept the assignment without risking a criminal violation?
And when the answer cannot be determined with confidence, the practical consequence can be that I have to decline a legitimate job opportunity rather than risk violating a criminal ordinance. I also cannot realistically explain the underlying reason to every general contractor or customer offering me work.
That is one reason I am so interested in the cumulative-effects aspect of this litigation. A law may be described individually as a residency restriction, presence restriction, reporting requirement, or registration provision, but those labels don’t necessarily describe what happens when all of them operate together in someone’s actual life. A geographic presence restriction can become an employment restriction in practice. A reporting requirement can become a restriction on accepting short-notice business travel. A residency restriction can determine whether someone can live close enough to employment to remain economically stable.
And these consequences accumulate even though the underlying conviction never changes.
In fact, the more I have looked into the empirical side, the more interesting it becomes. There is Florida-specific peer-reviewed research examining residency restrictions, geographic proximity to schools and daycares, homelessness and transience, recidivism, and the effectiveness of registration policies. Some of that research has also been relied upon by courts in other states when evaluating similar restrictions.
One area I am particularly interested in researching is how Florida’s law evolved over time. For example, the definition of a temporary residence was progressively reduced from 14 days, to 5 days, and eventually to 3 days, while additional reporting, travel, residency, and presence restrictions were added over the years. I would like to understand what empirical evidence, if any, the Legislature considered when each additional restriction was enacted.
That isn’t intended as second-guessing counsel’s litigation strategy. It is simply research that may be useful to FAC, its counsel, an expert, or a potential amicus at some point. If it isn’t useful, nothing is lost. But if FAC would find that kind of research helpful, I would be happy to share what I develop.
Every member of FAC is a plaintiff and every member is personally affected.
For your research, Florida has broad public records laws and you can request any study they considered.
Everyone had an opportunity to submit a declaration and have their personal circumstances evaluated and considered as part of the complaint. If you submit a declaration, you missed a good opportunity.
Directly, yes, but indirectly, it is a nationwide ripple effect for all PFRs and theirs given it may be a persuasive precedent once all is said and done that could help similar filings (and possible foundation for them).
There is no statute or ordinance that denies medical care. We are challenging actual statutes and ordinances.
No one is answering my question. Just out of curiosity, what is the time line on this case. I know the Expost facto case took years. The supreme court is very busy and takes only certain cases and sometimes a case can be settled fast (Rarely) or sometimes years.
Since this is a large case, just wondering what a time line might look like. I am sure everyone on here would like to know that just out of wonder? I have always been a curious kid and like to know how things work and the whys and why nots. Yes I know, I am annoying, even Grizzly bears avoid me, which I guess is a good thing LOL
Cherokee – you post more questions and comments on here than anyone. I’m sorry nobody is answering your questions as quickly as you like, but we have limited resources and 3600 other members (which by the way, you should become a member. Our records indicate that you are not even a member of FAC. Correct me if I’m wrong).
Nobody knows how long this will take and how busy the Supreme Court is has no bearing on the timing of this suit, since it’s being litigated in the Northern District of Florida.
It was filed yesterday. Defendants have not even been served yet. We don’t know if they will answer, file a motion to dismiss, or simply waive a white flag and surrender. If it’s the latter the case can be resolved as soon as tomorrow. That’s unlikely to happen. If it progresses as most cases do, it can take months before we even get into the discovery phase. The first Ex Post Facto case took years because it was dismissed and then remanded by the 11th. The second Ex Post Facto case took a couple of years but we won. If anyone on this end had a crystal ball we’d answer each of your questions definitively and as timely as you like. Unfortunately we don’t have a crystal ball.
To the best of my recollection, the Clements case still hasn’t been scheduled for trial and that was first filed way back 4/2024 https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52983235/Clements_v_Secretary,_Department_of_Corrections_LEE
The Maguire case first filed 8/25 is scheduled for trial on 4/27
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59718518/McGuire_v_Richardson,_et_al_MAG2
Sometimes the cases move fast other times they move very slow due to technicalities that need to be appealed and started all over
In my opinion
Best case scenario 18 months to go to trial
Worst case scenario 3+ plus years
You have to remember you don’t want to rush this a bad filing and decision would set bad precedent so we need to make sure everything goes smoothly. Also if we win it puts us in a better footing when they appeal to the Florida Supreme Court (I could be wrong about this part but since it’s filed in northern Florida, doesn’t this only apply to us northern Floridians right now or is it automatically a statewide suit? Or they could have picked the northern district since it could be viewed as more favorable than the southern or middle district courts of Florida and the suit encompasses all of Florida in this form of this lawsuit.
After phase 1 decision 18 months good case to years from now
The northern district of Florida will appeal the decision since they will lose (fingers crossed) then after that trail. I don’t want to be a Debbie downer here but think back to the original McGuire decision that the 11th circuit set on for 7 years so again it’s not straight forward so again add another 18 months if the stars align so now we’re at 3 years at a state wide decision. Then of course the state of Florida will appeal to the 11th and then it goes from there….
Remember FAC has several lawsuits going. Just because this Horse looks promising don’t discount FAC other lawsuits you never know when our other long shot horses might end up being the catalyst to get relief. So it could be sooner. Just stay positive.
Clements was just remanded back from the 11th. Feels like just yesterday we were soliciting declarations. Briefing was done several months ago. It’s moving along.
All… at the end of the day, the ball is rolling. It’s better that we are having this debate today than a year from now. Time passes. Could you imagine if we had to register every URL we went to? Could you imagine if we had to go to the Driver’s license office AND the sheriff’s office for every in-state weekend away. These are wins that we now don’t think about, but at some point we were at the beginning.
Please stay positive and READ THE COMPLAINT!!! If you read the complaint, you’ll feel much better.
NOT “IF”!!!
WHEN WE WIN!!!
Do not fear, just believe we’ve already won!!!
I don’t believe (and I could be wrong) the FLA Supreme Court isn’t in the chain of things here since this are all USDC filings and not state court filings. Appeals from the USDCs to the 11th…
May God grant you a sweeping victory!!!!!!! Amen!!
DVC
I second the motion.
Wow, thank you all so much for your efforts and being a voice of reason. Even though in my case, adjudication was with-held back 1994- 95, before the registry exsisted. I’ve been on the registry sinse it began and I beleive I would fall within the ex-post facto clause. I’m not a convicted felon, yet I’ve been subjected to forced compliance and publicly listed on Fl. registry, so I’m very grateful for your filing this against the FDLE. God bless you all
Thank you FAC! When you’re in a life boat with a hole in it in the middle of the ocean with no food, water or hope, surrounded by sharks, a flickering light on the horizon (FAC lawsuit) sure is an immense boost of optimism!!! A light at the end of the ‘proverbial’ tunnel, can’t hear the train yet but know something great is on the way… I can’t do much, but we’ll (wife on board too) donate what we can when we can. Thanks SO much for all you do!!!!!
How will this affect those that have moved out of Florida but are yet still held captive by the lifetime registration?
It will not. That is not at issue in this case.
I may be biased but this suit reads like a perfectly organized condemnation of an obviously unconstitutional punishment scheme. As I read the points, I tried to play devil’s advocate and imagine how FDLE would defend themselves and I cannot see a way they can legitimately. They have no evidence of the registry protecting anyone, the restrictions are identical to being on probation, and they have kicked the can down the road every time they had an opportunity to be clearer on the law. So basically, their only defense, outside of outright fabricating the registries effectiveness, will be “If it only saves on child…” and we how BS that is. My main concern is getting judges who are willing to see the truth and finally end this because the case is strong and only fool would not be able to see that.
It goes even deeper for Retiree Military we marked under terrorist designation by the Federal side. No base entry, no deer entry, possible TSA extra questioning ill write up some truths
Special discrimination by Hud for life time registrants means no VA money for homelessness solution.