Florida Supreme Court to Review “Sexual Predator” Driver’s License Labeling

A case with major implications for the constitutional rights of those on the registry is now headed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Attorneys for Michael Crist have filed a notice seeking review of an appellate decision that upheld Florida’s requirement that people classified as “sexual predators” have that exact phrase printed in bold letters on their driver’s licenses. Crist, who was accused in 2019 of trying to cover the label with a sticker, argued that the mandate violates the First Amendment by forcing individuals to carry and display the state’s message on personal identification.

While the 5th District Court of Appeal rejected that argument, Judge Scott Makar issued a powerful dissent, pointing out that compelled government speech must be narrowly tailored. Other states, including Louisiana and Alabama, have already ruled that such branding is unconstitutional. Makar noted that Florida could easily use a less intrusive method, such as a statute number or internal code (as it already does for individuals labeled “sex offenders”) rather than plastering stigmatizing words across an ID.

The majority opinion tried to downplay the harm by claiming a license is “normally hidden from public view.” But as we all know, driver’s licenses are constantly required to be shown — at airports, banks, workplaces, when buying alcohol or cigarettes, when purchasing with a credit card, and more. Forcing people to repeatedly display a scarlet-letter label turns every interaction into an act of public shaming.

Supporters of the law, including former State Senator Lauren Book, have framed the designation as a “community safety tool.” But branding IDs is not about safety. Have people historically shown IDs before they committed a sexual offense? It is about punishment and perpetual humiliation — a burden that extends far beyond a prison sentence and undermines the basic constitutional protections that are supposed to apply to all citizens.

The Florida Supreme Court now has an opportunity to consider whether compelled government speech in the form of scarlet-letter driver’s licenses crosses the line into unconstitutional territory.

We will continue to monitor developments closely. If the Court agrees to hear the case, it could open the door to meaningful change.