Florida Supreme Court Declines to Hear Branded Driver’s License Case
A disappointing decision came out of the Florida Supreme Court in the branded driver’s license Case. the Supreme Court of Florida declined to accept jurisdiction in Michael Crist v. State of Florida.
The court’s order does not address the merits of Crist’s arguments. A denial of discretionary review simply means the Court chose not to hear the case — not that it approved or disapproved of the lower court’s reasoning. As a result, the decision of the 5th DCA remains final and controlling in Crist’s case.
For those who are unfamiliar…
Michael Crist was previously convicted in 2002 of attempted sexual battery on a child under 12 and lewd and lascivious molestation and was designated a “sexual predator”. He served an 8-year prison sentence and 17 years of supervised release after his release in 2008. Florida law required that his driver’s license bear the marking “SEXUAL PREDATOR.”
In 2019, during a sexual predator registration check, an officer saw Crist appearing to pick at his driver’s license, and later discovered a sticker (a smiley face emoji) covering the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” language. Crist was charged with violating the statute requiring the designation and with evidence tampering.
Crist argued that the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” designation forced him to convey a message he did not choose to express (compelled speech). He pointed to recent decisions from other courts (in Louisiana and an Alabama federal court) that held similar compelled labeling on IDs was unconstitutional.
But this is Florida… The trial court rejected Crist’s challenge, holding that he failed to show the marked-license requirement was unconstitutional and that the designation served a compelling public safety purpose. Crist appealed.
A three-judge panel of the 5th DCA initially reversed, agreeing with Crist’s constitutional argument.
But this is Florida… The full 5th DCA then reheard the case en banc and ultimately affirmed the conviction, holding that the requirement was constitutional — reasoning that the designation on a government-issued license amounted to state speech and did not violate Crist’s rights. Crist appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction — meaning the Supreme Court will not hear the case — and left the Fifth District’s ruling in place as the final word.
So what’s next? Crist has the option to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court within 90 days. He could argue there’s a conflict between Florida’s ruling and other courts that have struck down similar ID-labeling requirements. We don’t yet know if his attorneys will take that route, and if they do, the SCOTUS only takes a very small percentage of cases that seek its review.
HOWEVER… not all hope is lost… there is still the Kirkpatrick v. Kerner case in Federal Court. Although the Fifth District’s en banc decision in Crist upheld Florida’s “SEXUAL PREDATOR” license designation, it is not the end of the road for Kirkpatrick’s § 1983 challenge pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Kirkpatrick is also challenging the same branding. Crist is binding only within Florida’s state courts and serves merely as persuasive authority in federal court. A federal judge must independently apply First Amendment compelled-speech doctrine under controlling precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. Because Kirkpatrick is a civil rights action challenging the constitutionality of the statute itself — rather than a direct appeal of a state conviction — the federal court is free to reach its own conclusion. So we’ve not reached a dead end… unfortunately this certainly doesn’t help.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Biased Mark
Written By Quiet too long 02/25/2026
The Crist decision shows exactly what happens when a state court treats a branded driver’s license as a harmless civil tool rather than a vehicle for compelled identity. The Fifth DCA framed the “SEXUAL PREDATOR” label as state speech, sidestepping the First Amendment question entirely. But the federal court in Kirkpatrick v. Kerner is not bound by that framing. Federal judges must apply compelled‑speech doctrine directly, and they must also consider the administrative‑law principles reflected in broader constitutional analysis: classifications must be uniform, reviewable, and tied to a legitimate administrative purpose. Florida’s branding fails every one of those tests. It appears only on a driver’s license and nowhere else in the state’s classification system, even though the same status is listed in the registry as a classification that carries none of the constitutional guarantees normally required for identity‑based designations. The fact that the designation is imposed without any meaningful review mechanism effectively turns it into a caste‑like label, reinforcing a biased and self‑perpetuating system of civil restrictions. It functions as expressive branding rather than neutral identification, which triggers First Amendment scrutiny. And because the designation is imposed without any meaningful review mechanism, it raises the same concerns reflected in federal cases about final agency action and compelled identity. Crist’s case shows how state courts can avoid these issues by calling the branding “civil,” but Kirkpatrick gives a federal judge the opportunity to confront the constitutional reality: when a civil form is used to impose a stigmatizing message, the state is not regulating — it is compelling speech. Crist’s criminal appeal cannot be moved to federal court by reframing it as civil harm, but the constitutional issues raised in his case can be heard in federal court through a separate civil‑rights action — which is exactly what Kirkpatrick is doing. And when civil labels are used to impose constitutional burdens, the system becomes structurally biased, creating regulatory divisions that erode the very guarantees the Constitution is meant to protect. That is why these practices demand serious, principled re‑evaluation, and why appellate courts that rely on narrow civil classifications risk leaving deeper constitutional harms unaddressed within the very system they are interpreting. The oath these judges take is meant to anchor them to the constitutional values we hold dear, yet the system’s reliance on procedural labels often produces the appearance of an institution choosing not to see, not to hear, and not to speak about the constitutional injuries embedded in its own framework. This “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” posture preserves the surface of the system while leaving its underlying constitutional fractures untouched — reinforcing the very structural bias that demands urgent, principled re‑evaluation.
Disclaimer
This commentary is offered for informational and advocacy purposes only. It reflects a good‑faith analysis of constitutional principles, administrative practices, and publicly available case law. It does not provide legal advice, does not create an attorney‑client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. References to court decisions, statutes, or government practices are presented as part of a broader discussion about civil liberties and compelled identity, not as predictions or guarantees of legal outcomes. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified legal professionals for guidance specific to their circumstances. All opinions expressed here concern systemic issues and public policy, not any individual or agency.
Stigma. No lawmaker is willing to be the lynch pin that side with those forced to register. There is a podcast that did a report on how public perception is created with certain labels. Those casters noted how even though they made a separate podcast for attempting to correct the misinformation about TFR, that their primary shows lost ratings just because they were trying to do some good and spread the truth.
Carlin was right. NIMBY. People don’t care about the truth. They just want to believe what they are told to feel warm and cozy, even if what they are sold is a lie.
It truly amazes me how courts simply kick the can down the street. This was a no brainer of a decision. LA, Alabama, SCOTUS in the NH case setting the precedent for compelled speech. Shouldn’t the law just be the law; yielded in uniformity. Very frustrating, especially with the 3-panel sided with Crist and then they get pressure from the En Banc panel and rule against. Truly amazing. July is coming.
“… declined to accept jurisdiction…”
TF??!! 😡😖
Why t.f. am I required to pay for something that is not true. If I refuse to pay, can the state simply issue me an i.d. at no charge.
For the life of me I cannot understand why there are not class action suits alleging violation of civil rights under color of law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
I am not a lawyer, so I guess there mus be good reasons why it doesn’t apply.
Kirkpatrick is a 1983. Why would this need a class action?
I guess what I don’t understand is why aren’t they everywhere? Why aren’t there hundreds and hundreds of these?
Why aren’t the courts not being inundated by a million people whose civil rights are being violated on a daily basis?
I guess it’s probably money. I know that’s the case for me.