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.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Ex Post Facto Clauses to limit only legislation that is criminal or penal in nature,5 though the Court has also made clear that “the ex post facto effect of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to that which is essentially criminal They the law makers and FDLE are saying it is civil but it is criminal Please understand the part ” by giving a civil form”
*Marks v. United States* (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that increasing penalties retroactively violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits laws that alter the consequences of actions after they have occurred.
I got into trouble in 1989. They passed this law in 1995 after i was sentence in 1991. I was on Conditional Release from Florida Department of corrections in 2011 The rules and restrictions are just as though you are still on probation doc Parole when you are released after sentence termination. So, you still have to report to Government officials. It’s not checking in anymore It continuous Servitude We finished the Sentence imposed by a Florida Courts No other Ex felon has their liberties restricted!1
Florida Action Committee is doing the best job that can for us. I read the case it an awesome Case They are not talking about what the courts argue 30 years ago This isn’t about just providing the system with up-to-date information This Is a Chance to strike down laws that effect everyone!! Not just Florida State but the entire Nation
I am not excusing my past behavior. I broke God’s law and man’s law There are consequences for actions I am sure Both side can agree to that! After 30years, a conviction, a sentence. Its time to let us move on with our lives as well. Telling people how to live is wrong, I am not trying to hinder anyone from speaking but lets have a Positive mindset with this! The case is being heard by a Chief Judge who has no problem standing up for Constitutional rights.
I am asking everyone to keep a Positive mindset The lawyers FAC have are very good! Do some Google researched The Chief Judge Is Great! Please Read the Exhibits too FAC is present documentation that a Judge signed on Ex post facto
I don’t live in Florida anymore but under the guidelines! I did 16 years and Hopefully 4 more to go! That Ex post facto case means a lot to me too!
This a chance that a lot of us can get the relief we deserve So I am asking Respectfully Keep a positive mindset and Pray
Joseph, Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), was a due process case. Had nothing to do with Ex Post Facto. Are you sure you are citing to the correct case?
The Ex Post Facto Clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature, see Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), That’s all I am saying. Alot of us are tired of being punished.
I read the case. I left Florida 16 years ago. I pray that God touches the Judges heart and get rid of these unfair laws. We all paid a heavy price. X amount of time in prison then have to wait additional 20 -25 years just to get off the list. I done 16 years free I am thankful I am under GODs protection. I have 4 years to go. Right now, would be a good time to pray and help us forgive our foes We want forgiveness too ! We need to forgive for the hardships we each have endure. We must remember God Is in Control.
I read this case I have donated some money I believe it is strong enough!
The real Question is when does the punishment actually stop?
People everyone needs to PRAY!!!
The Kings heart is in the LORDS hand. He turns it which so ever HE will!!! Proverbs 21:1
What makes this case especially important is that it does not depend on a single all-or-nothing theory.
The ambitious argument is that Florida’s modern registry has evolved so far beyond the relatively limited system the Supreme Court considered in Smith v. Doe that its cumulative residency, presence, reporting, travel, and other restrictions now function as punishment. That is a difficult argument under existing precedent, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit, but it is not an unserious one. Doe v. Miami-Dade County already recognized that a Florida residency restriction can plausibly have punitive effects, and the complaint appears carefully designed to build the factual record that later cases have demanded.
But FAC has also pleaded claims that do not require a court to first declare the entire registry punitive. The First Amendment and vagueness challenges, in particular, raise a simpler constitutional question: even if Florida calls this system “civil regulation,” does that label give government unlimited authority to criminalize innocent presence, leave people guessing about where they may lawfully be, or restrict otherwise protected speech?
That two-track structure may be one of the complaint’s greatest strengths.
We also think the timing is notable. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ellingburg did not overrule Smith, but it renewed serious attention to how courts distinguish regulation from punishment. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned the doctrinal framework that allows government to impose substantial coercive consequences because of a past crime while avoiding constitutional scrutiny simply by calling those consequences “civil.”
For decades, registry litigation has too often been evaluated as though the relevant system were frozen in 2003. It is not. Florida has spent more than twenty years adding obligations, exclusions, criminal penalties, and collateral restrictions.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, FAC v. Glass asks an increasingly unavoidable constitutional question: At what point does the accumulation of supposedly nonpunitive restrictions become punishment in everything but name?
— The SOLAR Project
Hello, out of curiosity, what is “The SOLAR Project”? Also, you write, “But FAC has also pleaded claims that do not require a court to first declare the entire registry punitive.” Which of the claims require a court to declare the entire registry punitive? None of the claims do. You might have misread the complaint or relied on an AI summary that was incorrect.
I don’t read SOLAR’s comment as saying that FAC pleaded a claim requiring the court to declare the entire registry unconstitutional or punitive. I think the distinction they were drawing is more nuanced than that.
Certain claims—most obviously the Ex Post Facto and Eighth Amendment claims—necessarily place greater emphasis on whether the challenged statutory provisions, including their cumulative operation, constitute punishment in substance despite the Legislature’s civil characterization. The First Amendment and vagueness claims present a different analytical path because particular provisions can be unconstitutional under those doctrines without a predicate determination that the broader statutory regime is punitive.
So I think the phrase “declare the entire registry punitive” may have been broader than necessary, but the underlying distinction SOLAR was making remains an important one. FAC has multiple constitutional avenues of attack, and they do not all rise or fall on the same punitive-effects analysis.
I also would not assume from that wording that SOLAR relied upon an incorrect AI summary. In fact, the issue they raise overlaps considerably with a separate research project I have been undertaking concerning the historical evolution of Florida’s registration laws from 1997 through 2026.
My research approaches the question chronologically and provision by provision: what Florida’s original registration law actually required; when residence, travel, presence, communication, employment, verification, Internet, and other restrictions were subsequently added; what federal law—particularly SORNA—actually required; and, importantly, what Florida chose to impose independently beyond those federal requirements.
But there is another component that I think is particularly important to FAC’s case: comparing those legislative choices against the empirical evidence that was available when Florida made them.
That includes Florida-specific research and data concerning recidivism, residency restrictions, housing instability, homelessness, employment, geographic exclusion, and reintegration. In some instances, that evidence appears to contradict—or at least seriously call into question—the assumptions used to justify restrictions Florida imposed beyond the federal baseline.
That creates a much more interesting constitutional inquiry than simply asking whether registration itself is permissible. For each significant expansion, the questions become: What did federal law actually require? What additional restriction did Florida independently choose to impose? What public-safety objective did the Legislature identify? What empirical evidence supported that additional burden? And what contrary evidence was already available?
Those questions become particularly relevant under Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez when examining rational connection and excessiveness. A legislative declaration that a measure is “civil” is certainly relevant, but it does not end the constitutional inquiry into what that measure actually does or whether its increasingly restrictive effects bear a reasonable relationship to its stated nonpunitive purpose.
And that, I believe, is the larger point behind SOLAR’s comment: Smith v. Doe examined the system that existed before the Court in 2003. The constitutional question FAC is presenting concerns what Florida has actually constructed after decades of additional legislation.
Whether SOLAR and I would characterize every claim in precisely the same way is secondary. Their central observation—that FAC has pleaded multiple constitutional theories and that not all of them depend upon the same route to relief—is a fair and important one.
What will this do for me? My charge was in New York in 1988 and I served my time there got out in 1993 completed my program in prison, completed my probation moved to Florida had to register and wear a gps monitor. I was homeless and they arrested me for not being at the bus stop ” again on gps monitor ” so they knew where I was at every minute of the day. I went to Florida prison for a year and a day for that. I moved out of State to Illinois where I didn’t have to register. Lived there from 2010 until February 15th 2026. Now I just had a cop stop at my property telling me I have to go down and register all over tomorrow. Well they said 25 years and it will come off the registry site as long as you have no new felonies. Well they made sure I got one in 2009 when they put me in prison for a crime that I paid for already. What can I do to get off the sex offender registry after all these years without a sex crime of any kind? Jobs are hard to get because of it, can’t rent a house because the landlords don’t want your kind in their house. Please can you tell me what I need to do. I am on disability waiting for a heart transplant. Thank you for your time.
The relief requested is only from the Florida statutes. If you are not in Florida and are not subject to Florida’s laws, you should consult with an attorney in Illinois.
Depending on the outcome, it could possibly be a persuasive case precedent in the future once it is all said and done for a similar filing elsewhere in the country. Now, that could be a bit before that happens, as most likely the loser will appeal, but in the end it could be.
I wish FAC & everyone living under these draconian laws the very best for success!